Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Tourism

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate for the current year of the value of tourism to Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In 1989, the last year for which complete figures are available, Wales's earnings from tourism were around £1,500 million—an increase of some 25 per cent. on the previous year. It has also been estimated that the industry provides some 95,000 jobs in the Principality, approximately 9 per cent. of the total. There are, of course, other benefits—including the protection and enhancement of our culture, environment, and heritage. The tourism industry is, therefore, of considerable importance to, the Welsh economy.

Mr. Gregory: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the figures are most attractive, particularly bearing in mind the employment possibilities. Is the Wales tourist board co-operating with the private sector as much as possible to provide a true partnership between state and private sector? Bearing in mind the Gulf crisis, is the Wales

tourist board doing everything possible to regain the confidence of overseas tourists and encouraging them to visit Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Wales tourist board collaborates closely with the private sector, and has the use of section 4 grants amounting to some £3·2 million this year. It uses part of that money to support its local enterprise and development programme, which is part of a wider strategy over five years which is expected to generate £73 million of investment and to create 2,000 jobs. The programme is on course to achieve that target. I confirm that the Wales tourist board is working closely with the British Tourist Authority in seeking to attract visitors to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister join me in praising the cleanliness of the beaches of Gower, which the recently published National Rivers Authority report gives a clean bill of health in respect of last year's bathing season? In congratulating Swansea city council, the National Rivers Authority and everyone else on their efforts in ensuring the cleanliness of Gower beaches, can the Minister tell the people of Wales how he proposes to help them to pay the higher poll tax bills that bring that particular benefit?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Gower is a much-admired part of the country, and the hon. Gentleman is honoured to represent it. I am delighted to hear him sing the praises of Gower beaches. I would also praise the Llandudno beaches in my constituency. The proposals for bringing our beaches up to European standards of cleanliness fall within the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water. The hon. Gentleman will know that the population of Wales are also most anxious that Welsh beaches should meet the highest standards, so they should be able to contribute towards achieving that.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is to visit Bodelwyddan castle on 29 March for a recording of "Any Questions?" Will my hon. Friend the Minister remind our right hon. Friend of the importance


of that cultural landmark and of the inadvisability of premature steps being taken by Clwyd county council which might put in jeopardy the viability of that enterprise?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, have visited Bodelwyddan castle. It is indeed an attractive castle, with a superb exhibition of pictures from the national portrait gallery. It is the responsibility of the Labour-controlled Clwyd council and I understand that there has been some doubt about the future of the castle. It is a matter for that local authority to resolve.

Hospital Reorganisation

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority to discuss hospital reorganisation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): My right hon. Friend currently has no such plans.

Mr. Morgan: I take it from the hon. Member's comprehensive answer that he is aware of South Glamorgan district health authority's closure decisions, which were announced last week and were followed up by his visit to the Prince of Wales hospital in Rhydlafar in my constituency. Will he confirm that South Glamorgan district health authority has quietly dropped its plans for a third large district general hospital, without which none of the closure decisions announced last week makes any sense? Does he agree that it is putting the cart before the horse for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to confirm South Glamorgan's closure proposals? Will he agree to advise South Glamorgan district health authority to withdraw the six closure proposals that he has empowered it to carry out, as it no longer has the £70 million district general hospital—on which the whole plan depends?

Mr. Bennett: The first thing to be said is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has spent all his time misleading his constituents about the reorganisation proposals. I wish to put on record categorically that his statements in the newspaper Wales on Sunday in the past few weeks are completely untrue. The important thing to recall is that moving the children's ward at Rhydlafar to the Cardiff royal infirmary where there will be proper district general hospital facilities available is an improvement for the children of South Glamorgan. It is appalling that the hon. Member has spent so much time maligning the district health authority and completely misrepresenting what is to happen. Any proposals by the district health authority for its new district general hospital will be considered when it proposes them, but nothing in the reorganisation proposals is predicated on the new hospital; they are all being proposed because they are good moves to improve the provision of health services in South Glamorgan. Most of the improvements will mean new hospitals as opposed to old buildings which have outlived their usefulness.

Training

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils in Wales to discuss the numbers of people requiring youth training places and the number of employment training places available in 1991–92.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I meet TEC chairman in Wales regularly and a few moments ago I was with Geoff Canning and Bob Hastie. My next formal meeting with all the TEC chairmen in Wales is on 7 May, when we shall discuss a wide range of issues, including the provision of training.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the Secretary of State had a good lunch. Did the chairman of Mid Glamorgan TEC tell the right hon. Gentleman that one of the major training organisations in Merthyr Tydfil is turning young people away at the moment because it has no places, and that it will have to turn away Easter and summer school leavers because there are no places? They will either have to go further afield for training or just wait until places occur. Were we not supposed to be encouraging young people to train rather than slamming the doors on them?

Mr. Hunt: The correct position is this. Total provision for training in Wales in 1991–92 is £151 million, after taking account of my recent announcement of an additional £8·41 million. That is slightly more than is likely to be spent this year and more than two thirds of that money will be directly available to training and enterprise councils in Wales to spend, which is more than they have to spend at the moment. However, it is up to the training and enterprise councils to settle their priorities.

Open-heart Operations

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has regarding the number of open-heart operations for adults that is needed to be carried out for people in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We are presently developing cardiac services in Wales to reflect the advice of the Royal College of Physicians that about 560 to 660 operations per million population are required for adults.

Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. His arithmetic will tell him straight away that, with a population of 2·5 million, Wales needs 1,200 adult open-heart operations every year, not the present abysmal figure of fewer than 700. As Wales has one of the highest rates of cardiac disease of any developed country in the world, will the Minister tell us when the promises that have been made since 1984 that the figure will be raised to 1,200 adult operations are to be kept, when the satellite unit which will perform 400 adult operations will be set up and where will it be sited?

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a negative view of this important subject. [Interruption.] It is a pity that Labour Members do not want to hear the facts. In the current financial year, there have been 140 more operations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that in 1979 there were no such operations. We have recognised the need for a second cardiac centre to perform some 400 operations a year.


Consideration is now being given to where it should be sited: it will be somewhere to the west of Cardiff, but there are competing claims from Swansea, Bridgend and elsewhere. We shall ensure that an announcement is made as soon as a proper decision can be reached, which will mean staffing with good consultants.
The hon. Gentleman should also remember that the 1,200 operations to which he referred do not represent merely the total number of heart operations in Wales. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) should listen. His hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has asked a serious question and I am giving a serious answer. The total number of operations will not be just the 1,200 in Wales—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather a long answer.

Mr. Bennett: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was a rather complicated question.
Patients in north Wales who are now going to Merseyside and Manchester will continue to do so. The total for Wales will be more than 1,200, but some of the operations will be performed in English hospitals.

Mr. Rogers: Despite the grave danger of being subjected to yet another party political broadcast, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that many of the referrals for open-heart surgery are from chest clinics, especially those scattered throughout the valleys, where there is a good deal of residual ill health caused by mining? The chest clinics are still desperately needed, despite the substantial rundown of the mining industry that has taken place under the present Government.
In the light of that, what does the Minister think of Mid Glamorgan health authority's arbitrary decision to close the chest clinic in Pontypridd without any consultation with the community health council, Members of Parliament or anyone else who might have an interest? Given that 60 per cent. of patients at the Pontypridd chest clinic come from the Rhondda, I am very much alarmed by the methods adopted by the new type of health authority and the failure to consult anyone.

Mr. Bennett: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not heard about this morning's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about improvements to the health service in the valleys. A further £5·65 million is to be provided and 13 more projects will be helped. All of that will help the people of the valleys to improve their health service.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the increase in unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds and males and females over 18 years has been since he last answered oral questions.

Mr. David Hunt: As the figures are collected quarterly, no new figures are yet available.

Mr. Powell: I hope that I shall be given the same latitude as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Speaker: No—please.

Mr. Powell: As we do not have the figures, it is important that we get the facts right. I will give the Secretary of State my estimate. In my constituency, about 200 people will join the unemployment register as a result of the closure of CATO—Community Activities and Training in Ogmore. When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils, as he has told my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that he will, will he ask them to carry out an investigation of the financial circumstances of Mid Glamorgan TEC in particular? I understand that, among all the millions of pounds to which the Secretary of State has referred, about £1 million has gone astray in Mid Glamorgan TEC alone. That could have kept in operation the five agencies which have been made redundant since they were set up, and provided training for 400 or 500 trainees.

Mr. Hunt: I believe that the development of training and enterprise councils has been generally welcomed by the House. I also believe that they have sufficient resources. It is for the TECs to determine their financial and management decisions, including the selection of training providers. The TECs have made it clear that the contracts that are signed must satisfy the quality standards criteria. This is a matter for the training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Livsey: What advice would the Secretary of State give to one of my constituents, aged 18, who completed a two-year course and then discovered that he was applying with 81 others for a job? He failed to get it, although he was well qualified. Would the Secretary of State say to that young person, as was said to me when I was aged 18, that his only opportunity lies outside Wales?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's question gives me a great opportunity to blow the Welsh Office's trumpet and say that 17 new industrial projects, involving investment of more than £63 million and creating more than 1,260 jobs, have been announced by me from this Dispatch Box in the past month. The opportunities available are increasing. A number of very large industrial concerns, including Toyota and Bosch, are recruiting staff. I am determined that the number of opportunities will increase.

Mr. Raffan: In view of the recent announcement of a total of 400 new jobs in north Wales—at W. A. Turner in Flint, Breger Gibson in Greenfield and Mita in St. Asaph—does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates not only the underlying strength of the local economy in north Wales but the job opportunities for young people there?

Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to demonstrate that all those announcements are positive proof that Wales, and particularly north Wales, continues to act as a magnet for industrial investment from both home and abroad. Some Opposition Members do not like good news, but this is very good news for Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate the Department on any of its success stories, but they are being undermined by the current deep recession. Has the Secretary of State overlooked last week's loss in Pontypridd of 125 valuable electronics jobs? The Conservatives tell us that they have solved Wales's problems and engineered an economic


miracle, but do not the unemployment figures tell a different story? For example, has not unemployment in Neath increased by 12 per cent. during the last year? Was not the right hon. Gentleman's press statement in Neath this morning a grotesque travesty of the facts?

Mr. Hunt: I am a little mystified as to why the hon. Gentleman should mention Neath, of all places. I should hate to think that he was trying to make party political advantage out of the very serious challenge that faces Wales. Since 1979, there have been a large number of inward investment projects in Neath, creating 1,200 jobs. To rehearse what I said earlier, the medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are still as good as ever.

Overseas Companies

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inquiries the Welsh Office have answered during the current financial year from overseas companies interested in developing new manufacturing jobs in (a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: I am delighted to be able to say that in the current financial year there have, to date, been 189 visits to Wales by potential inward investors. Increasing interest is being shown in investment in Gwynedd and, indeed, throughout Wales.
I am particularly delighted to be able to announce today that Euro/DPC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Los Angeles-based Diagnositc Projects Corporation, is to relocate to Gwynedd with an investment of nearly £10 million at Llanberis, which will create 200 jobs. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his help in securing that marvellous inward investment project.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and thank him for his positive commitment to the project. I also thank the Welsh Office, which rapily expedited these matters, the Welsh Development Agency and Gwynedd county council for the role that they played. In particular I thank Arfon borough council, whose ability to attract inward investment was exemplary. Does the Secretary of State agree that for a leading American company to have chosen Gwynedd as its European base for this major project gives the lie to those who—say[Interruption.]—that inward investment will not come to counties such as Gwynedd? Does he also agree that it is the prelude to a much happier future, with more industrial investment and more jobs?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was outrageous of Labour Members to shout "Tory friend", as though this good news were bad news for the Labour party. In fact, it is indeed bad news for the Labour party. It gives a marvellous boost to the economy of north Wales and will further help to stem the tide of bright young Welsh men and women who, traditionally, have left the area to find opportunities elsewhere. An industry at the leading edge of technology has chosen to locate in an area where the Welsh language and traditions thrive. I am sure that that decision will be seen as a milestone in the economic development of Gwynedd.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that flat production and pay and earnings increases of 9 or 10 per cent. are bound to result in falling employment and to lessen the attractiveness of Wales to inward investors? As

the cost of living has barely risen in the past six months, those rises are quite unnecessary to counter the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Hunt: I agree that high wage rises are a disincentive. None the less, I am able to announce the creation of further jobs at Swansea enterprise park, where a Japanese company, Shimano UK, is establishing the European headquarters of its fishing equipment division. Another Japanese company, Aiwa UK, will invest nearly £4 million in extending operations at its factory near Crumlin in Gwent, and Therapeutic Antibodies Incorporated of Nashville, Tennessee is to establish a biological manufacturing facility in Dyfed, with financial support from the Welsh Office. I cannot hear cheers from Labour Members, but I can hear them from elsewhere in the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: Our inward investment record is very good, and the right hon. Gentleman's news on Gwynedd will help the county very much. Given last Thursday's news that unemployment last month was the highest since June 1981, does the Secretary of State accept that the Welsh economy is suffering from the same political incompetence, mismanagement and dithering that we saw from the right hon. Gentleman on the poll tax? Does he agree that we need a budget for investment, and is he aware that according to the latest available figures there has been a cut of almost 60 per cent. in full-time manufacturing jobs in the Neath and Port Talbot area in the past 10 years? The right hon. Gentleman's press release in Neath this morning was a travesty of the facts and he should be ashamed of it.

Mr. Hunt: I have a horrible feeling that the hon. Gentleman wrote that before he was aware of the contents of my announcement. Since our previous Welsh Question Time, I have been able to announce 17 projects supported by the Welsh Office involving investment of more than £63 million and creating more than 1,260 new jobs. I was delighted to give regional selective assistance of more than £10 million towards those new job opportunities. Although I greatly regret any increase in unemployment, that is why I say that the medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are still as good as ever and the Labour party should stop talking our country down.

NHS Resources

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to provide additional resources to the NHS in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Planned expenditure has been increased to £1,719 million in 1991–92 which, with expected cost improvements and income generation schemes, will provide an increase of 13 per cent. over the original provision in this financial year. Additional resources will be made available for review bodies' pay awards.

Mr. Griffiths: Has a comparison been made between the rise in inflation in the health service and in inflation generally? How much extra money is required for the growing care of all our people? Does the Minister agree that, despite the welcome increases in funding, waiting lists in many areas are still increasing? Will he call in the capital


programme of Mid Glamorgan health authority to reconsider the need to develop phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend, as promised six years ago?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. He will find that, between 1974 and 1979, there was a 9·3 per cent. increase in real terms. That has been far exceeded under the present Government, who have increased expenditure by 55·7 per cent. in real terms.
The hon. Gentleman referred to waiting lists. I, too, have looked at the matter carefully. Waiting times are as important as waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, with an increase in the elderly population and a larger number of patients being seen, there will be further demands on the service. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of in-patients as a percentage of total throughput has fallen from 10·9 to 10 per cent. in the past 15 years. For acute sector patients, the figure is down from 13·7 to 12·8 per cent.
There is an improvement, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the fact that more people are being seen makes it difficult to tackle the problem of waiting lists, but we are trying to do that through the waiting lists initiative and the regional centres.

Rail Services

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in rail services in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail. They last met on 8 February.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that British Rail cannot at present spare the £2 million needed to upgrade the north Wales line so that it can take trains travelling at 90 mph, which will be necessary if we are to gain the maximum benefit from the introduction of 125s on 30 September? Will my hon. Friend press the Treasury to provide that relatively small sum, and ask British Rail in return to stop the 125s at Prestatyn rather than Lichfield?

Sir Wyn Roberts: That is a matter for British Rail and I know that BR is anxious to upgrade the track along the north Wales coast. My hon. Friend will be aware that British Rail has chosen to invest £10 million in additional and improved stock, and that will improve the service. We shall have three high-speed 125 InterCity trains running from Holyhead to London. We shall also have the 158s operating on that line. In all, we shall have 12 trains running to London as opposed to the 10 that we have now.

Mr. John P. Smith: Has the Minister read the excellent report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on Cardiff-Wales airport—in particular the recommendations on a rail link for the area, to bring the airport into line with all the premier regional airports in the country? Will the Minister now take whatever steps are necessary to provide such a link—especially as we could do it at such little cost?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am certainly aware of the Select Committee's recommendation. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter before, but it is for

Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council to discuss the project with British Rail and agree it or otherwise but, so far, the body has not decided to go forward with it.

Welsh National Opera

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the board and management of Welsh National Opera to discuss their financial and artistic plans.

Mr. David Hunt: I look forward to my next meeting with the management of the Welsh National Opera. Wales owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to that centre of excellence. I was therefore pleased to be able to find £842,000 to put the company on a secure financial footing. I was also pleased that the Arts Council decided to increase the company's touring grant.

Mr. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his remarkable generosity towards this jewel in our artistic crown. May I put it to him that the WNO plays no small part in helping to secure inward investment, and urge him to lose no opportunity to take advantage of that?

Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more. I had the privilege and honour to be present in Tokyo at the closing performance of the Welsh National Opera. A very large number—

Mr. Barry Jones: Encore!

Mr. Hunt: I will give an encore if the hon. Gentleman wishes. At that performance, a large number of Japanese business men were tremendously impressed by Welsh quality. The Welsh National Opera has put Wales on the world map as representing quality.

Tourism

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of the Welsh tourism industry.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Welsh tourism industry has made very considerable progress in recent years. Better marketing and provision of the infrastructure essential to tourism development have undoubtedly improved the quality of our tourism product. For this I must give credit to the roles of the Wales tourist board, the development agencies, local authorities and of course the private sector, which is the main engine of wealth and job creation.

Mr. Coombs: I invite my hon. Friend to join me in emphasising the importance of tourism in rural Wales. Does he agree that a significant feature of the rural tourism industry in Wales is the availability of section 4 grants long after they have been done away with in England? How much is being spent in the current year on section 4 grants? Can he assure the House that those grants will continue to be available throughout Wales in future?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to state that section 4 grants are important to Wales. We are spending £3·2 million on them this year through the Wales tourist board. As I said earlier, the grants are essential to the development strategy of the Wales tourist board, which ends in 1994. I am aware that my hon. Friend was a member of the Employment Select


Committee which took a view on section 4 grants. However, I believe that tourism projects in England are legiible for regional selective assistance and grants from other sources.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister accept that the development of the tourist industry depends on efficient train services, particularly into north Wales? Will he impress two things on British Rail? First, there should be no back-up buses should trains be full in the summer when reorganisation comes—instead, there should be adequate rolling stock for all services in north Wales. Secondly, north Wales needs a third high-speed train set to provide the standard of service that we have at the moment. I hope that the Minister recognises that the proposed two sets will provide the boat train services and that there will be only one service in each direction between north Wales and Euston as a result of the proposed reorganisation.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am impressed by the fact that British Rail is only too anxious to meet demand. It lays considerable stress on demand. The new timetable and new rolling stock which it will provide for the service to north Wales will obviously have to be justified by its use. I do not hesitate to say that if the services that British Rail is to provide prove that it is meeting a market need and that further developments in the service are required, I am sure that British Rail will consider that.

Self-employment

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of persons self-employed in Wales at the latest available date; and what it was in 1979.

Mr. David Hunt: The latest available figures show that there are 184,000 self-employed people in Wales. When compared with the figure in 1979, that represents an increase of 50 per cent.

Sir Anthony Meyer: That is excellent news. Does not it give the lie to the notion that the Welsh are not good at setting up businesses? Is not it a great tribute to this Government? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the rather churlish reception given to this and other good news by the Opposition suggests that they are a little nervous and that, whoever wins the Neath by-election, it probably will not be the Labour candidate?

Mr. Hunt: I agree. The figures are a tremendous tribute to entrepreneurs in Wales. The real issue in Neath is whether the electors of Neath want to continue through the 1990s under the progressive policies of this Prime Minister or return to the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and 1970s.

Community Charge

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the impact of the community charge in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: Several.

Mr. Williams: Does the Secretary of State, as one of the Ministers heavily implicated in the introduction of the poll tax, now admit that it was an awful mistake? If, following their review of the poll tax, the Government announce on

Thursday that they have decided on its abolition, can the Secretary of State confirm the view of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—that the process will take three years? Can the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Enough.

Mr. Hunt: I think that that was indeed enough, Mr. Speaker.
I would have more time to consider the hon. Gentleman's views if he followed the example of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats and came to see me. My invitation to the Labour party is still open. We are conducting a fundamental review of the community charge and we shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are not prepared to accept the Liberal Democrats' proposal—that there should be a local income tax? Such a tax works perfectly well in many countries in Europe and it would work well in Wales.

Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends for coming to see me and presenting detailed proposals. No final decisions have been made; we are still carefully considering the proposals. However, I still await detailed costed proposals from the Labour party. Indeed, that party has not provided any proposals and I do not believe that it is in a position to do SO.

Mr. Murphy: As he mentioned costs, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, so far, as Secretary of State for Wales, he has spent £10 million to set the poll tax up, £20 million to administer it and £80 million to sweeten it? Is not it true that he might as well have dumped more than £100 million in the Bristol channel? Can he confirm that, this morning, he said that the poll tax, in some form, will continue in Wales, no matter what the Prime Minister wants for the rest of the country?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information. I have been very careful not to preview the results of the review, which will be announced in due course. What really has cost the United Kindom dear is the overspending of Labour councils—particularly councils in England. The message from local elections this year will be, "Conservative councils cost you less and give you better services."

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

House of Fraser

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the implications of the House of Fraser report for the work of the Serious Fraud Office.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider publishing a simple guide for business men? There is a certain amount of confusion in the business community that the Al-Fayeds, despite having been accused in the House of Fraser report of repeatedly lying,


deceiving and defrauding, retain a banking licence as well as their positions as company directors. Is not this the kind of injustice that simply will not go away?

The Attorney-General: I greatly sympathise with my hon. Friend in his desire for simple guides. If I were in the business of publishing guides, I should hope, without too much confidence that I could make them simple. The code for Crown prosecutors is the only guide for which I am responsible. That code establishes that before criminal proceedings are brought, there must be a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Criminal proceedings have to be based on evidence that is admissible in criminal courts, as distinct from evidence such as is available to Department of Trade and Industry inspectors. The spectrum for a criminal court is more narrow. As for the Banking Acts, the Bank of England is the regulating authority. There is nothing that I can say about that. With regard to the disqualification of directors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, decided not to operate the sanctions under section 8 and disqualify. That decision is now the subject of judicial review proceedings and is therefore sub judice.

Anti-Semitic Literature

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General when he last authorised any prosecution for the publication of anti-Semitic literature.

The Attorney-General: On 23 Febraury I gave my consent to the prosecution of Jane Lady Birdwood for offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to the leaflets "The Ultimate Blasphemy", "Jewish Tributes to our Child Martyrs", "The Snides of March" and "Another Blood Libel or Ritual Murder".

Mr. Marshall: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether that is the only prosecution for anti-Semitic behaviour that he has brought in recent months? Does he accept that many people look forward to the successful prosecution of such disgraceful hatred and trade in bigotry and racism?

The Attorney-General: I know what a close interest my hon. Friend takes in this matter. In the past I have described that kind of literature as odious and, of course, the whole House agrees with that. In recent months I authorised the prosecution of two other cases. Fourteen cases have been reported to me and are being considered by the police. That probably answers my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Cohen: Notwithstanding that one proposed prosecution, has the Attorney-General's Department blocked other proposed prosecutions that have been put to him in the past by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis? Do the proposed prosecution and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer suggest a change in his policy and that he will look more favourably on prosecuting those who are guilty of distributing anti-Semitic publications?

The Attorney-General: There is no question of a change in policy. The matter is governed by the code for Crown prosecutors, to which I have already referred. Nor is there any question that any prosecution has been blocked. In

recent years, no decision not to prosecute has been taken on public interest grounds—such a decision has always been made on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. As for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the hon. Gentleman may or may not have seen a letter from Sir John Dellow, the acting commissioner, a few weeks ago in which he said that he knew that all cases referred to the Crown prosecution service were given full and proper consideration and decisions were taken on entirely proper grounds.

Sir John Stokes: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether there have been any prosecutions for anti-English publications?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. Because—I do not know whether I should say "because", but I remind my hon. Friend that prosecutions under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 relate to publications which are designed, intended or likely to stir up racial hatred and which are threatening, abusive or insulting in their character.

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer of 25 February, Official Report, column 640, if he will give further consideration to the degree to which the use of napalm on civilian targets conforms to the principle of proportionality outlined in his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, columns 14–15.

The Attorney-General: My answer of 4 February related to operations in the Gulf. There is no question of napalm having been used against civilians. Napalm was not available to British forces at all. The Americans have stated that napalm was used by their forces only against Iraqi trenches that had been filled with oil.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the horrendous events that have been unleashed in Kerbala, Basra and other cities, and as someone must have sold those most sophisticated weapons knowing exactly what they were up to, should not more attention be given to the ratification of the relevant protocol?

The Attorney-General: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety on that score. He will have seen the reply that was given on 14 March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which he said that the Government are considering whether to ratify the convention that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We have signed it, but it has not yet been ratified. That is as far as the matter can be taken, at any rate by me today.

Mr. Fraser: When the Attorney-General advises on compliance with international obligations in the Gulf, will he have regard to some disturbing reports on BBC Radio 4 this morning and ensure that the Kuwaiti Government and other Governments are reminded of their obligations under the international conventions on refugees and the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the Geneva conventions, and the duty of common humanity which must be owed to people who have been resident peacefully in those countries for many years?

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's question is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and


Commonwealth Affairs. It is of the highest importance—the Government insisted on this throughout the events that have taken place since August—that international law should be upheld. Kuwait, along with ourselves, Iraq, the United States and many other countries are signatories to the Geneva convention. I understand what is behind the hon. Gentleman's question and I agree that it is very important.

Mr. Ian Bruce: If any individuals, particularly in Iraq, who may be guilty of what appears to be a war crime in using napalm against their own civilian population come within the jurisdiction of British courts, could we take action against them? If the Government cannot take action, have they any plans to bring those people within our jurisdiction?

The Attorney-General: It is a criminal offence, under our legislation, to commit such a "grave breach" of the Geneva convention. As for liability for war crimes, the Security Council has reminded Iraq of its liability. Whether arrangements are made for the prosecution of war crimes does not rest with this country alone but must be decided in consultation with our allies.

Courts (Taxing)

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Attorney-General whether a decision has been made on the reorganisation of the taxing function of courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): New arrangements common to all six circuits in England and Wales provide that, as from 4 March this year, the very largest claims for costs in criminal cases will be referred to specialist taxing teams with particular expertise in determining such claims. In other respects, the taxing function of the courts, covering the vast majority of cases, remains unchanged.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the concern felt in Wales that those taxing services may be moved from Cardiff and other centres in Wales to Bristol in the south and Manchester in the north? Will he assure us that, if there is a move in that direction, it will not be seen as the thin end of the wedge, leading to the dismantling of the structure in the Wales and Chester circuit, and that the future is guaranteed?

The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I assure him that all that is planned is that those special cases that involve the largest costs and require specialist teams will be dealt with by specialist teams. There is no question of abolishing the Wales and Chester circuit.

City Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the mechanism for the prosecution of fraud relating to the City of London; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: On 6 March I made an extended visit to the Serious Fraud Office, whose director I frequently meet. The professionalism and commitment among staff of all disciplines and at all levels impressed me greatly. So did the innovative approach adopted by the

SFO to the use of new technology, both in case management and in court presentation. From the legislation of a Conservative Government, I am glad to say that we now have in place a far more formidable and effective mechanism for the prosecution of serious and complex fraud than anything that our predecessors evidently thought sufficient.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General tell us whether that new mechanism will be sufficient to deal with that national organisation near to the City of London and close to the Palace of Westminster, which has been trading under three different names during the past four years? Is he aware that it has been attempting a reverse takeover bid of one major corporation and a Labour co-operative, and that a statement was made at the weekend by a leader of that group who, when he was under pressure, become known as Paddy Backdown?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time memorising that question but he has not made it entirely clear to me. Any matter that is brought before the police or the Serious Fraud Office as meriting investigation will be investigated. If enough evidence is admissible in a criminal court proceeding to give rise to the realistic prospect of a conviction, a prosecution will follow. However, I doubt whether my answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman—that will depend on many factors that cannot be taken into account by a quasi-judicial authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Famine

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra emergency relief is being given to alleviate the famine in Africa, over the amount planned at the beginning of the financial year.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As I explained in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 6 February, at columns 146–47, the initial provision for humanitarian assistance made at the beginning of the current financial year was £66·7 million. That provision is now £74 million. No separate allocation is made for Africa.

Mrs. Mahon: Given the scale of the disaster facing the people of sub-Saharan Africa, where 27 million face starvation, was not that a complacent reply, and should not the Minister be trying to initiate a coalition of nations to make that disaster the national emergency that it should be? Could not we start by having a full-scale debate in the House of Commons? The public have responded magnificently this weekend; cannot the Government do the same?

Mrs. Chalker: Many right hon. and hon. Members—even Opposition Members—recognise that the British Government went out of their way, at a diplomatic level, to encourage all the main donors to do more. Britain alone cannot end the famine in Africa and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. We have received some helpful responses, but we are continuing the pressure on all the European Community's member states, the United States,


Canada, Australia and other donors to ensure that not only the British public respond—they did so magnificently through Comic Relief—but that other donors do their bit.

Mr. Wells: In view of my right hon. Friend's great generosity in dealing with the African famine, the refugees caused by the Gulf war and eastern European matters, is not it time, in accordance with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on famine in Africa, to ask the Treasury for more money to boost the amount available for overseas aid in the coming year?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I expect the humanitarian aid provision for the next financial year at least to match the current financial commitment. Last Thursday I was able to approve further allocations of food aid for Ethiopia. They constituted, last week alone, 6,500 tonnes for the world food programme, worth £1 million, and 1,300 tonnes for Oxfam's programme in the Ogaden, totalling another £1·25 million.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister attempts to confuse the House with her selection of figures. Does she remember, when referring to the Ethiopian famine of 1985, saying to the House last December:
We shall certainly at least match what we did that year."—[Official Report, 19 December 1990, Vol. 183, c. 291.]
That would mean giving £36 million in today's prices—so far the Government have given £27 million since the famine was first talked about in September. When does she intend to honour that pledge? Perhaps she will tell the House today. Why are Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, the Disasters Emergency Committee and many other agencies desperately advertising in the newspapers for more help? When will the Government stop being so miserly and save the millions of people now dying from famine in Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady seems to believe that Britain should do it all—I cannot agree with her. While the information has been coining in I have responded, not to some but to all appeals that the British Government have received, be it from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the world food programme or other agencies. I have received letters from agencies stating that they never received such a response. We shall go on responding, and I am not prepared to accept the hon. Lady's tired and empty allegations. Of course, charities are rightly making appeals—I back them fully and shall continue to do so.

Somalia

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for humanitarian and development aid to Somalia.

Mrs. Chanter: Conditions inside Somalia make the delivery of any form of aid extremely difficult. I have no plans at present to reinstate our development aid programme. I am ready to consider providing humanitarian aid directly once needs are defined and delivery can be assured. I have already provided emergency aid to Somali refugees who have fled from the current unrest.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has a special interest in the well-being of the people of the north of Somalia because of our past relationship with British Somaliland and because of the number of Isak

communities that there are here, including in my constituency? Will she take steps to go beyond what she has already achieved—she has given aid to people in Ethiopian refugee camps and helped the small water projects in the south—by bringing, through nongovernmental organisations, some sort of humanitarian aid to the north, which is a desperate district that has not so far been helped by the Government?

Mrs. Chalker: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friend has said. The Somali National Movement controlled the north. Unfortunately, the United Somali Congress-appointed president in the interim Government in Mogadishu lacked the nationwide support that is much needed. The northern clans have now set up a separate administration. We do not know whether we shall be able to get even humanitarian aid into those areas, but we are waiting to hear from non-governmental organisations and from the UNHCR missions that have gone there. As the Somali refugees continue to cross the border into Ethiopia, I am today announcing another £430,000 to be given to the UNHCR to help.

Ms. Abbott: Is it true that while 27 million people in Africa face starvation—including those in Somalia—the European Economic Community is diverting aid from the third world to eastern Europe? If so, do the Government support that?

Mrs. Chalker: The EC has put up front the money that it has committed to Africa. It is not diverting funds as far as I know and we should certainly not support it if it were.

Caribbean

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her visit to the Caribbean.

Mrs. Chalker: I had wide-ranging discussions with the Prime Ministers of Barbados, Grenada, Dominica and St. Vincent and their Ministers and senior officials. I was very impressed with our projects and those of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and other agencies. The high commission and development division are working well in each island.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for that answer. Were the various countries concerned with the state of the Single European Act and with the implications of the European Community on their trade? If there is no access to their goods, there may be further pressure on the aid agencies in this country to assist them. Do we have any common ground with the French?

Mrs. Chalker: I discussed the possibility of diversified agricultural production with each island and especially with Miss Charles, the Prime Minister of Dominica. We are helping the islands through current projects to maximise opportunities for export earnings as well as encouraging the European Community to deal properly with the bananas after 1992. The United Kingdom is committed to effective preferential access arrangements for our traditional suppliers. We have already put a paper to the Commission, but the paper proposed by the French


seems not to offer what the Caribbean banana producers need and it would involve a substantial levy, which we do not believe is the way forward.

Cambodia

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are giving to help the people of Cambodia with humanitarian needs; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: In the past 12 years we have provided nearly £15 million for Cambodian refugees on the Thai border. Since 1989 we have also committed over £2 million for humanitarian assistance in Cambodia via British non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies. We are ready to consider further requests for help.

Mr. O'Brien: I noted the right hon. Lady's reply, but what assistance can be given to those people who are suffering in the border camps because of the lack of fresh water supplies, which is the greatest killer of children in that area? As those people have been suffering because of war for the past 49 years, is not there something more that the Government can do to ease the situation in the border camps, especially with regard to fresh water supplies?

Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about the supply of fresh water. We cannot act directly in the border camps, but we can, we have and we shall continue to act through the United Nations border relief organisation to try to bring relief to those people. It is not easy, but we shall continue to try. We also hope that some projects will come from the Mekong committee involving the provision of clean water in other parts of Cambodia. I should welcome that if we received the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the 17 motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Caravan Sites and Pitches (Rateble Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions — Point of Order

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This gesture that we are being asked to enact has been presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: The Bill?

Mr. Marlow: This gesture here, the War Crimes Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We have not reached the Bill yet.

Mr. Marlow: It has been presented by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is supported by a Mr. Secretary Hurst. He is a non-existent Minister—a phantom Secretary of State. One can understand why

ordinary flesh-and-blood Ministers may be reluctant to support such a measure, but is it in order for the House to debate legislation that has so obviously been printed by a poltergeist?

Mr. Speaker: My copy says "Mr. Secretary Hurd".

Mr. Marlow: On my copy, it says "Mr. Secretary Hurd"—and that is correct—
Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hurst",
and so on. I have looked carefully at the list of Members of this House and of the other place, and I cannot find a Mr. Secretary Hurst. Perhaps there is a Secretary of State who is in neither House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is a misprint for "Hunt". I will ensure that it is corrected.

Orders of the Day — War Crimes Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and his hon. Friends. However, the arguments that they have advanced in the amendment may be raised in the course of the debate.
I intend today to give some precedence to the hon. Members who were not called on 19 March last year—not total precedence, but some precedence. In view of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill needs little introduction to this House. It is the same Bill which was considered and emphatically endorsed by this House last Session, and hon. Members will be familiar with the circumstances which led to its subsequent defeat. I should like to remind the House of the background to the measure and why the Government have decided to bring it back for further parliamentary consideration.
In February 1988 the then Home Secretary decided to establish an inquiry to consider the allegations that were then circulating to the effect that some perpetrators of war crimes committed during the period of the second world war had taken refuge in this country. The inquiry's task was to consider what substance there might be to those allegations, to assess the strength of the evidence that might be brought before a court of trial, and to recommend whether the law should be changed to establish jurisdiction over those cases.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Can he estimate the average age of those who may be proceeded against if the Bill is successful? Also, has he been given an account of the number of such persons resident in Scotland?

Mr. Baker: The inquiry covered those points. In the second part of the inquiry, which has not been published for the obvious reason that it would not be right to publish it because it contained allegations against certain people, there was reference to the numbers involved. The inquiry looked into just over 300 cases. Of those, it recommended that 75 should be accorded further investigation. The inquiry then came to the conclusion that there were three individuals against whom evidence to mount a prosecution existed and another three cases were considered to merit further detailed investigation.
The House will recall that the inquiry reported in June 1989. Its findings may have surprised some people, for it concluded that among the very many innocent and decent people who had taken refuge in this country at the end of the war there might have been some who had committed the most terrible crimes. In respect of a few of the cases

that the inquiry was able to consider in detail, it considered that there was already sufficient evidence available to mount a criminal prosecution. The inquiry satisfied itself that the actions in question were in clear breach of international law as it stood at the time when they were committed. That was important if any new jurisdiction were not to be retrospective. But with that important point having been established, the inquiry concluded that the courts in this country should be given jurisdiction in respect of the offences in question even though the offences took place almost 50 years ago, and in other countries.
The Government decided that Parliament should be given an opportunity to express a view on the inquiry's report. Debates were accordingly held in the two Houses of Parliament in the autumn of 1989, with this House indicating on a free vote its decisive support for the principle of legislation by 348 votes to 123. To implement that decision, the Bill was introduced on 8 March 1990, when the Bill was passed by 273 votes to 60 on a free vote.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: In a moment. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way now.
Though a short Bill, it was extensively considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and was sent unamended to another place. There the Bill was refused Second Reading on 4 June, by 207 votes to 74.
The Government obviously needed to reflect upon the arguments which had been advanced and the votes which had been cast—not only in the other place, but also in this House. Clearly this issue is a matter principally for individual conscience.
Two considerations weighed heavily with the Government, and I should now like to outline them to the House.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
One was the decisiveness of the Commons vote. I do not believe that it would be right to ignore the clearly expressed view of the elected Chamber. There must be an opportunity for these issues to be considered again, to see how far views have modified or changed over the months since the Bill was last considered, and whether any accommodation between the two Houses may now be possible. That was the first consideration. Views may well have changed. Tonight's vote will show whether that is the case.
The second consideration was the Bill's particular subject matter, and the nature of the evidence disclosed by the inquiry. The inquiry's published report tells a chilling story of cold-blooded murder on a horrendous scale—killings not committed in the heat of battle, but of civilian populations in circumstances that had no possible connection with military objectives. The inquiry also showed that there is evidence of some of the perpetrators of these crimes actually living in this country. The inquiry argued that our courts should have jurisdiction over such offences, in circumstances where extradition to the scene of the crime is impossible for whatever reasons, and the Government agree with that conclusion. What we are doing is to allow the courts to consider the available


evidence, and to decide for themselves on the question of guilt or innocence. That is a jurisdiction which the Government believe should exist in this country.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He says that inquiries have come to the conclusion that we ought to look at these issues—and they are very important issues and terrible things have been done; there is no doubt about that. But why does the Bill restrict itself to 1939–45? Why does it restrict itself to parts of the world that were part of Germany or under German occupation? Why can it not be extended, for example, to Japan or land under Japanese occupation? Why can it not be extended on a more general basis, for example, to Palestine after the war? Why is it restricted? One has the feeling at the back of one's mind that we have been heavily mugged in this House by some strong lobby. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that that is not the case?

Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. There are several reasons why the Bill does not cover, for example, Japanese war crimes. First, they were outside the inquiry's terms of reference and, as my hon. Friend has said, would similarly fall outside the terms of the Bill because there is no evidence to suggest that any Japanese war criminals have entered the United Kingdom. Many hundreds of allegations were sent to the war crimes inquiry, but none claimed that a Japanese war criminal was now living in this country.

Mr. Grocott: The Home Secretary said that one consideration would be whether tonight's vote showed that opinion had changed since the Bill was last debated in the House. Can he give us an absolute assurance that there will be no tortuous analysis of tonight's vote if the majority is different? Does he agree that the only thing that matters is whether the House reaffirms its previous decision and that, if it does so, it will be absolutely clear that the will of the House is that the Bill should become law?

Mr. Baker: On issues such as this I trust to the judgment of the House of Commons. There are certain big issues. This is a big issue; I do not underestimate its importance. At the end of the day, each Member of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, must make up his or her mind about the Bill. I am absolutely clear about one thing. People hold strong views on both sides of the argument. Those who believe that these matters should be pursued believe that it is essential that possible criminals are brought to justice. Others feel that the events happened a long time ago, that they concern another jurisdiction and that we should let bygones be bygones, for a variety of reasons. I know how strongly those views are held. But I place my confidence in the judgment of the House of Commons tonight. There will not be a great analysis of the Division list or anything of that sort. I hope that the House will come to a clear decision tonight.

Mr. Gorst: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his second point, may I ask him whether he agrees that allied to it is the consideration that if we do not pass the Bill there will be a danger of trial by media? Although no member of the all-party war crimes committee is aware of the names of the three main suspects, those names are known and, under parliamentary privilege, they could be made known. In that case, the most almighty trial by media could take place. That is so odious to consider that it is undesirable that it should take place.

Mr. Baker: If any hon. Members know the names of any of those who are alleged to have committed war crimes, I hope that they will not mention those names in the House today. That would be very unfair indeed. A trial of that sort would be the worst condemnation because it would be done under privilege and those accused would not have the right to reply. I agree with my hon. Friend that the way in which these matters can be cleared up is by extending the jurisdiction and holding trials.
For the two reasons that I gave, the Government concluded that these issues should be brought back before Parliament, and they made that clear in the Queen's Speech. Since that decision was announced, we have made clear our hope that Parliament would reach an agreed position on the Bill. Our hope is that on further consideration the Bill will be found acceptable in another place, and that it will be allowed to pass into law. Nevertheless, we recognise that some have expressed anxiety about the way in which the legislation will work in practice, and how far it will be possible to guarantee the fairness of any trials which ensue.
The arrangements in the Bill as drafted ensure fairness through measures such as the removal of the committal proceedings, the right of the accused to appeal to a court to have the trial set aside, and the power of the Attorney-General to agree before a prosecution is brought. But the other place may wish to make amendments. It may wish to strengthen the Bill further in that regard. If the Bill is amended in another place, the House will, of course, have the opportunity to consider the impact of any changes or amendments made and how far they are acceptable within the overall scheme of the legislation.
The Government hope that the Bill will be allowed to pass with the agreement of both Houses, whether in the form before the House today or amended in a mutually acceptable way in another place. But the difference of view between the Houses may remain irreconcilable. I read the debate in the House of Lords. It was a distinguished debate. In a way it crystallised the strong feelings that divide people. Some Members of the other place who are Jews and had family connected with the matter urged the House not to pass the Bill. Other Members who are Jews urged the House to pass the Bill. Opinion is deeply divided.
The House will be aware that the provisions of the Parliament Acts exist to ensure that the views of the elected Chamber ultimately prevail over the other House, in cases where no accommodation can be found. I very much hope that resort to those powers will not be necessary. To preserve the possibility of using those powers, it is necessary to send the Bill back to another place in the form that it was in on the previous occasion. That is why the Bill before the House is unamended from last time, and why it cannot be subject to any amendments during its reconsideration by this House.

Mr. Tony Banks: This has nothing to do with being Jewish or with any other race or religion. It is to do with Nazis who may still reside in this country and who should never be given the time to take another breath of our good air. How many people are we talking about? I understand that 301 cases were investigated. So that we may have an idea of the scale of what we are contemplating, will the Home Secretary tell us how many cases will be under serious consideration?

Mr. Baker: I told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that 301 cases were considered. It was thought that 75 merited further consideration, that three cases were virtually prepared and that a further three merited much more extensive investigation. That is the scale of the matter.

Ms. Clare Short: I am troubled by the fact that only four cases were scrutinised in detail. We heard about the 70 cases. Only four were investigated in detail—there seemed to be a case in three, and the person in the fourth died. Are we making a decision on the basis of only two cases that have been considered in detail?

Mr. Baker: Other cases are brought to the Government's attention from time to time. This is a difficult matter. Those of us who have seen the evidence have found it chilling. In some cases, there is detailed evidence implicating people in certain ghastly and horrible events.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have given way a great deal, and I should proceed because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, which touches on important issues which are significant in a much wider sense.
The House will be familiar with the heart of the Bill, in clause 1(1), which establishes jurisdiction in respect of offences of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide. It is important that those offences are covered in the Bill. This is not a Bill concerning crimes against humanity. Those who have studied and debated the matter previously will know that there is a big distinction between the position post-1957 and the position pre-1957 in these matters. The Bill is limited to the crimes of murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide committed in violation of the laws and customs of war in German-held territory during the second world war.
The Bill is concerned with the specific wrongdoing uncovered by the Hetherington inquiry and is intended precisely to deal with that. The Bill refers to "war crimes" for the very reason to which I alluded—to keep the Bill within the terms of international law as it stood at the relevant time and not to bring in any other form of atrocity of which international law had not then taken cognisance.
Clause 2 addresses the investigative process that will be necessary if the Bill is passed. The Government recognise the demands that that will place on the police, particularly the Metropolitan police, and have accordingly decided that the cost should be met from central Government.
I draw attention to the schedule, which provides for a procedure in lieu of committal for war crime trials. Hon. Members will recall that that is not a new idea. Such a procedure is already available in serious fraud trials, and the House has recently agreed to a similar procedure for

child abuse cases in the Criminal Justice Bill, now in another place. The justification for the provision is the same in each case and is intended to help the defendant in that the complexity and sensitivity of the matters in question are such that presenting the evidence twice over, at committal and at substantive trial, would be an inappropriate burden on all concerned.
I am, of course, aware that the subject matter of the Bill is sensitive and difficult and one on which there are strongly held views cutting across party lines. The Government respect those differences of opinion. To decide to bring the Bill back before Parliament is in no way to doubt the integrity of those whose views differ from our own. I am sure that hon. Members will feel that strongly as the debate proceeds. No one would suggest that those opposed to the Bill would in any way condone the terrible crimes with which it deals. Members in all parts of this House and all shades of opinion in another place are at one in our utter abhorrence of the deeds that occurred and of the perverted philosophy that gave rise to them.
I well recognise the strength of the arguments—that the events that the Bill addresses took place half a lifetime ago; that suspects are inevitably of advancing years, as are many of the witnesses; and that the mounting of trials will not be easy. Few of us would have wished to confront those issues again now, or to be reminded of the horrors that occurred. The fact is that those allegations are before us—allegations so serious that the passage of time, however long, cannot blot them out.
I respect those who want only to forget, but I respect also those who, without any sense of vindictiveness or with any desire for revenge or vengeance, call for justice to be done in the memory of all those who suffered so appallingly. I believe that the criminal justice system of this country is capable of ensuring that justice is done in respect both of the victims and of those accused of those crimes.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that those who have misgivings about the Bill do not have them simply because they want to forget. The memories are burned as fiercely into their minds as into the minds of those who support the Bill. When he speaks of justice, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fear that it might not be possible to ensure a fair trial also gives rise to misgivings about the Bill?

Mr. Baker: I hope that the protection built into the Bill and into its procedures will make it possible to have fair trials. I have already indicated certain protections in the committal process, and the need for the Attorney-General to be satisfied. There is also the protection for the accused of going to the High Court to have the matter set aside. If the House agrees to the establishment of this jurisdiction, there will be a fair hearing, in courts both north and south of the border.

Sir John Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary passed rather quickly the question of the Bill calling in aid the Parliament Act 1911 of the Liberal Government and the Parliament Act 1949 of the Labour Government. Putting aside for a moment the curiousness of a Tory Government making this attack on another place, is it appropriate for an extraordinarily difficult Bill of this kind concerning a moral issue, and for which there has been no support either


from the nation or in the Conservative party manifesto, to be forced through the constitution and signed by the Queen purely on the vote of this House?

Mr. Baker: I answered that point at the beginning of my speech. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an issue of great import and significance, because we are asking this House, and Parliament, to agree to a very unusual procedure. We are justified in asking the House to agree to do so only because of the unusual nature and enormity of the crimes that were committed. My hon. Friend has expressed his views in the past, and, although I appreciate his concern about retrospection and other matters, many are concerned that persons who are alleged to have perpetrated such crimes could have taken refuge in our country and be living here now, and feel strongly and passionately that they should be called to account.
As to the differences between the two Houses, as this House has expressed its view so clearly on a free vote, it is right to allow the matter to come back again and for it to go to another place. One cannot say what is likely to happen in another place, and I should not want to anticipate whether the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and, if it is, in what way it might be changed. If it is changed, it will return to this House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate as well as anyone the extremely difficult issues with which the Government have had to grapple in considering the Bill. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the enormity of the crimes disclosed in the evidence to which he referred. It was for that reason, among others, that the Government thought it right to present the Bill in the first place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the House reflects on the matter for a second time, it should pay some attention to the views so strongly expressed in another place? Should we not ask ourselves, as we reflect upon that—because that is the purpose of this second opportunity—whether it would be right to invite a jury to proceed to convict in cases of this kind when we have been unable to persuade the Upper House to agree on the legitimacy of the premise and the proceedings?
The view that I took was that, with a Bill of this kind, we should seek to persuade both Houses of the legitimacy of our case. In the absence of that, in cases as exceptional as these, the House should think carefully before relying on the matters that the Home Secretary has advanced as justification for letting the Bill go forward for a second time.

Mr. Baker: I thought that I had heard the answer to that question from my right hon. and learned Friend's own lips on other occasions. One cannot possibly prejudge how a jury will respond to these matters until it hears the evidence. Juries will have to assess the evidence in a case and consider it carefully. The fact that there are divided opinions between the House and the other place reflects the divided opinions in this House. There are divided opinions in the country on the Bill. We feel—I know that my right hon. and learned Friend felt it strongly—that the possibility of this jurisdiction should be extended, and that is what the Bill seeks to do.
To sum up, may I say that I believe—especially in answer to the last question—that the criminal justice system of our country is capable of ensuring that justice is done in respect of both the victims and those accused of these crimes. There can be no guarantee that if

prosecutions are mounted there will be convictions, which is the point of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, as that is not Parliament's task. It is our job to provide courts with the jurisdiction that they need to hear the charges that have been made and to come to a conclusion on the facts, according to the normal principles of British justice. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On the Opposition Benches and, as I understand it, on the Conservative Benches, there will be a free vote at 10 o'clock. Usually on such occasions, whoever speaks from the Front Bench gives advice to his right hon. and hon. Friends on whether they ought to support the legislation under discussion. I do not presume to do so today. My own doubts about my decision to support the Bill are so great—though support the Bill I shall—and my decision to support it was arrived at after such doubts and consideration that it would be simply impertinent for me to make any recommendations to my right hon. and hon. Friends about how they should proceed. All that I can do is to describe why, after much consideration and a good deal of anguish, I have decided to vote in the Bill's favour.
When the Bill was debated in the House last year, I began my speech by describing the difficulties that I then faced—difficulties which I have again experienced, for the passage of the past 11 months has done nothing to reduce my dilemma. Last year, I voted for the Bill with reluctance and with reservations. I have decided to do the same today, but my reservations have multiplied and my reluctance has increased.
I know that there are those who say that politicians should never express any doubts and should always advocate a case with complete confidence and without reservation. I feel that I am unable to do that today, for reasons that I shall set out to the best of my ability.
My doubts have certainly been increased by some of the opinions expressed in the House of Lords. Lord Shawcross overstated the case when he said that the Bill was a violation of
the basic principles of British justice.
However, no one could read what distinguished lawyers of every persuasion said without having doubts about the procedures involved in this Bill—which were expressed during the previous Second Reading debate—reinforced.
My decision and my doubts have not been influenced by the eventual rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords. The House of Lords possesses the right under the constitution to reject legislation, and we possess the right to overrule that rejection. The House of Lords, this House and the Government, if I may say so, have acted with absolute constitutional propriety by bringing the matter forward again. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the powers presently exercised by the House of Lords should decide to change them rather than to complain about them. If I have been influenced by the Lords at all, it is not by their decision but by the speeches made during the debate. They were made by lawyers who happened to be peers, and they added to the enormous weight of legal opinion ranged against the Bill. I shall turn to the legal technicalities shortly, but first let me explain why, despite all my doubts, I shall vote for the Bill.
I do not want it to be possible for anyone—no matter how ignorant, prejudiced or malicious—to have the slightest opportunity of arguing that the House has either


forgotten the holocaust or forgiven. This is not the time to appear in the slightest degree tender-hearted about those who commit war crimes or are complacent about anti-Semitism. I shall vote for the Bill for what I can only describe as essentially declaratory reasons.
I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that no such declaration is necessary from this Parliament, and in a sense that is wholly true, but I recall the way in which votes in the House of Lords were interpreted—or, I fear, misinterpreted—even by some of the peers who took part in the debate. That misinterpretation resulted from the way in which the entire debate about the principles underlying our action has been tilted in the wrong direction by one of the sentences in the Hetherington-Chalmers report—or, rather, a misinterpretation of it.
The most quoted sentence in that report described the crimes to which the Bill relates as
so monstrous that they cannot be condoned".
That judgment is so obvious, so self-evident and so transparently true that to include it as a crucial part of the report implies that someone disagrees with it. Following the Lords debate, the unattractive suggestion was made that voting against the Bill implied that crimes to which it referred could be condoned. Although I shall vote for the Bill, I have no doubt that those who vote against it support the Hetherington judgment about
crimes so monstrous that they cannot be condoned
with as much passion as those who vote for it.
I confess that my instinct now, as a year ago, is best expressed by the much-quoted statement that Sir Winston Churchill made to the House on 28 October 1948. I, too, feel instinctively that the time has come
to draw the sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past—hard as that may be—and look, for the sake of all our salvation, towards the future."—[Official Report, 28 October 1948; Vol. 457, c. 256.]
The context in which Sir Winston made that statement is a subject of great dispute. I say no more than that it represents my instinctive view, not simply because of compassion for the feeble and senile who will be prosecuted under this Bill if any prosecutions come about—although compassion for the feeble and senile is not an unworthy emotion. I wonder whether it is right for society as a whole to relive the horrors of the holocaust and some of the more despicable and unforgivable crimes that were committed during that period, particularly given the way in which some British newspapers will deal with any prosecutions.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after the end of the war, many of us—regardless of our age at the time—believed that the allies had given a clear pledge that, once the war was over and Nazism defeated, all those responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity should be brought to justice? We were pleased about what happened in Nuremberg—a different Nuremberg from that associated with the Nazi reign of terror. What concerns us, and will always concern us, is precisely what was implied by Sir Winston Churchill's words; that, rather than continuing to bring the people responsible to justice, we have allowed many to escape justice, and, indeed, to lead prosperous lives in

Germany or Latin America. If the policy contained in the allies' promise had continued we might not be dealing with the matter now.
Much the same applies to the atrocities committed in Kuwait. I believe that, no matter how long it takes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was more of a speech than an intervention.

Mr. Winnick: May I end, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, no matter how long it takes, I believe that those responsible for the crimes committed during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait should be brought to justice.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I am sure that he will understand mine when I say to him that we have to discuss the situation as we find it now, not the situation as it was, when it was thought to be right to make promises immediately after the second world war. All of us would feel a good deal more comfortable if action had been taken then, which would have obviated the necessity to take action 50 years later. I have come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend, as he knows, about the need to go on. However, I should be doing my cause, and my attempt to describe my position, less than justice were I not to deal with some of the very grave doubts that I feel.

Mr. Cormack: Only last week it was brought home to us in a horrific way that the wrong people had been convicted of a horrific crime. We all know that the crime committed was horrific, but the wrong people were convicted. Can we be so sure that the right people will be convicted here?

Mr. Hattersley: I intend to deal with that point. We shall have to consider the techniques by which the operation of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be appropriate within our system of justice. I had intended to repeat that it was simply my instinct that prompted me to feel support for Sir Winston's statement, with all its limitations and generalities. I intended then to say, as I say now, that as the House examines legislation, it has to be guided by more than instinct. Therefore, it is to the practicalities of the Bill that I now turn.
Part of my concern about the Bill is that, although it is entitled "War Crimes", it is concerned not with war crimes in general but with war criminals in particular. To put it crudely, we know at least some of the individuals whom the new law is intended to encompass. The Home Secretary said disingenuously that it would be wrong of us to mention their names in the House. The same stern injunction was not applied five years ago to Scottish Television, which broadcast programmes that purported to describe individuals who would be subject to such prosecutions were the law to be amended.
The Hetherington-Chalmers report refers to 10 named war criminals whose names were supplied by the Wiesenthal Centre. Scottish Television broadcast a programme that named men whom it claimed were responsible for war crimes that it specified. Newspaper articles have been written about these names and a libel case is pending. So well are they known—to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that the Home Secretary did not deal with—that in the final paragraph of the Hetherington-Chalmers report reference is made to the age of known


suspects. Like it or not, we are considering legislation which may be used to prosecute suspects who are already publicly identified.
That leads me to my first question to the Home Secretary, which I ask him in the spirit of the debate—not in the usual style of trying to score rhetorical points but with the unusual House of Commons intention of eliciting information that might help our debate. It would, I think, be of great help to the House as a whole if, in that spirit, the Home Secretary could answer my question straight away. Does he really believe that prosecutions are possible under the Bill, and is that the advice that he has received from the Law Officers? I do not refer to lawyers more distinguished than the Attorney-General, but the Home Secretary will not argue with me if I say that lawyers as distinguished as the Attorney-General insist that prosecutions under the Bill will simply not be possible and that no Home Secretary would give his fiat for prosecutions to proceed.
I am not asking the Home Secretary whether he thinks that prosecutions will succeed or whether there will be convictions, though I realise that the Law Officers' advice is bound to be conditioned by their judgment of the likelihood of success, but, with so much prejudicial material already published, is the beginning of a prosecution even possible?
I understand also that there may be questions concerning the general legal propriety of proceeding after such a passage of time. I shall turn in a moment to the technical difficulties of prosecutions for offences committed half a century ago, but I am advised that a 50-year delay between the commission of the crime and the prosecution of the subject may in itself be regarded as what lawyers call, in their jargon, "abuse of the process". I am told that that does not imply criticism of a lawyer who may proceed with such a decision, but it is suggested that that would be ruled out simply because of the 50-year delay between the commission of the crime and prosecution.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am not a lawyer, but even if the Home Secretary says that there will be no prosecutions and that the system will not allow it, surely Parliament must give the legal authorities the power to take such decisions. We could then hold our heads up with other countries and say that we have done everything possible. That is a question for the British legal system, and the Attorney-General cannot be asked to make that decision until the House has passed the legislation.

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend is correct—I mean that in no ironic sense; I am grateful to him, but I should be more grateful for an answer from the Home Secretary—he and I can vote for the Bill simply as a declaratory measure. My hon. Friend spoke of our holding our heads up high. That is not language which I would use, but I think that he supports my view that the Bill is a declaration of principle. The House must know how it is behaving—whether it is being asked to pass a Bill whose intentions are purely declaratory or whether the Government genuinely believe that we are passing a Bill which may result in prosecutions if it is passed, for instance, during the term of office of the present Attorney-General.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman asked me to advise him. It is not usual to disclose the advice that

Law Officers give Ministers, and I must stick to that constitutional convention. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 1(3), which says:
No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, as the case may be, the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland
We shall have to consider carefully, first, the position of the Attorney-General. Paragraph 6 of schedule 1 gives the judge the power to dismiss
a charge (and accordingly quash a count relating to it in any indictment preferred against the applicant) if it appears to him that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient for a jury properly to convict him.
Given those safeguards, we believe that it would be possible to bring proceedings.
I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully. So far, his reservations are so great that I should be surprised if he voted for the Bill. Perhaps he will be able to establish the bridge of conviction that we are waiting for.

Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that the Home Secretary is listening to my speech with such care—that is a new development. His answer on the abuse of process was not a model of precision. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will no doubt develop the question in more detail. I understand that, according to convention, the Home Secretary cannot reveal the Attorney-General's advice. I can only thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me to vote for the Bill for the reason that I keep repeating as my one reason for doing so—the belief that it is declaratory and little else.

Ms. Short: I am terribly troubled by my right hon. Friend's reason for voting for the Bill. If he is declaring his opposition to the holocaust, we all share that view unanimously and deeply, but we do not have to vote for a bad Bill which might lead to injustice because we oppose the holocaust. If that is his reason, I invite him to change his mind and vote against the Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: Fortunately, there will be a free vote and, putting it at its lowest, I am no more bound by the rules of collective responsibility than is my hon. Friend. She will know how loose those ties are.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I have already been speaking for rather longer than the Home Secretary and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a second question, which I hope he will answer a little more precisely than he did the first.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Very well.

Sir Bernard Braine: Let me say straight away that I respect the right hon. Gentleman's reservations. That is the approach that I would expect of him. But he should bear it in mind that the Bill is primarily concerned with something that he has not mentioned—the acquisition of British citizenship by people who may have committed the most atrocious crimes. Does the right hon. Gentleman have doubts about the retention of British citizenship by


such people, bearing in mind the fact that both the Canadian and the Australian Parliaments have already legislated on the matter?

Mr. Hattersley: That intervention shows the folly of giving way—even to the Father of the House—as I shall shortly deal with the aquisition of British citizenship.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall proceed because so many hon. Members want to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to help me, but I am anxious to ask the Home Secretary a second question, which I ask in exactly the same spirit as the first. Is the Bill that he has placed before the House the Bill that he wants to pass into law? His speech contained a Delphic reference to the possibility of mutually agreed amendments. I realise perfectly well that, under the Parliament Acts, the right hon. Gentleman must send the Bill unamended to the Upper House. If a measure is to be submitted to the Lords twice, the same Bill must be submitted on each occasion. I think that it would not be an overstatement of the position to say that it would be intolerable if the Government already knew that they would amend or attempt to amend in the Upper House the Bill for which they are asking the House to vote tonight. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he has it in mind to propose amendments in the other place if that is possible, because, if he has, he has a duty to tell us now.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: If the other place rejects the Bill on Second Reading, it will come back to this House and proceed to the statute book under the Parliament Acts. I am sure that, if that happens, it will operate satisfactorily as it is drafted. If the other place gives the Bill its Second Reading, it may wish to amend it, but let me make it clear that the Government will not be tabling amendments at that stage. It will be for the other place to decide, and I know that there are strong views among those on the Back Benches there. If the other place amends the Bill, this House will have to consider the amendments when the Bill comes back. We shall be able to accept or reject them or amend the Bill ourselves.

Mr. Hattersley: So there will be no Government amendments or Government-inspired amendments?

Mr. Baker: No.

Mr. Hattersley: Right.
As I intend to vote for the Bill, I have to ask myself a further question. My first question was: is it right, under any circumstances, to proceed against those responsible for crimes that were committed half a century ago and, in consequence, prosecute the old and feeble? I have concluded that it is. The crimes concerned were so enormous that they defy our comprehension. I know that there are those who argue—they have argued since our previous debate—that more recent acts of genocide have been even more horrific than those committed immediately before or during the second world war, but I have no scale of values within which I can compare atrocities. Whether they were the worst of all time, or almost the worst, or so bad as to be beyond comprehension, there can be no statute of limitations on the crimes to which the

Hetherington-Chalmers report refers. I am not attracted to the simple principle that things have gone on for too long.
I should have preferred the Government to introduce general legislation along the lines of the 1949 Geneva convention, which made it clear that any war criminal from any war in any sector or any continent who might at any time come to Britain would be the subject of prosecution. That course would have had an advantage: we should have avoided the concept of preparing to prosecute known individuals. I have no doubt, however, that what the Government are doing today is legitimised by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and I can support that principle.
My second question concerns the propriety of legislating for the punishment of crimes committed before an Act was passed. The Bill that we are debating is not quite retrospective legislation. It comes near to it, but, in my view, does not qualify for that description. We are making retrospective changes in jurisdiction.
British citizens who had committed the crimes that we are discussing now would already be liable to prosecution. Had the alleged criminals remained in their countries of birth or not changed their nationality after the crime had been committed, they would certainly either have been prosecuted in their native countries or been liable to deportation to them.
I do not believe that the acquisition of British citizenship should be a means by which the prosecutions for such hideous crimes is avoided. I am aware of the alternative route of extradition or deportation. However, I cannot support that. I do not think that the system of criminal justice in the countries to which they might be deported, although improved over the past two or three years, is one to which I should want to see them go. In any case, I would not agree to deportation to a country that retained capital punishment for such crimes. That must mean that, if they are to be prosecuted at all, they must be prosecuted in this country.
Having convinced myself that neither the passage of time nor the extension of jurisdiction is sufficient argument to vote against the Bill, I considered the five main purposes of our judicial system: the deterrence of other potential criminals; the reformation of those guilty of the crime; the protection of society against a repetition of the offence; retribution and the demonstration of revulsion which society feels towards the crime and those who committed it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that it was simply an oversight by the right hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that, on the face of the Bill, it is not just British citizens who are specified, but those who are either British citizens or resident ordinarily in Great Britain?

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State is quite right; that was an oversight. I am grateful to him for pointing it out. The record of our proceedings will now be correct.
I had just offered to the House the five classic reasons why criminals are pursued, prosecuted and brought to justice. I do not believe for a moment that the first four considerations can be remotely applied in this case. The idea that passing the Bill will deter further atrocities is regrettably wholly unconvincing. In any event, were that the Government's intention, more general legislation


would have been introduced. The Bill is intended to meet specific circumstances, as the Home Secretary said, by referring to men living here, as distinct from alleged Japanese war criminals who are not. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as a general deterrent. Nor can it possibly be argued that conviction and imprisonment might rehabilitate the offenders and, having reformed them, allow them to be sent back into the community as useful citizens. Nor are we locking them away to ensure that they do not commit such an offence a second time. That leaves the final purpose of the law: retribution and the demonstration of society's revulsion.
Retribution is far too close to vengeance for my taste. In one of his short stories, Isaac Bashevis Singer reminded his readers about the real meaning of the Old Testament assertion
Vengeance is mine … saith the Lord".
Singer said that the meaning is perfectly clear. It does not mean that vengeance is generally sanctified; it meant that vengeance should be left to the only authority entitled to dispense it. Singer also said that that was not only the last word on the subject, it was the first. I am, therefore, left with the final justification for the legislation, which is the demonstration of collective revulsion against the crime and the criminal and in this case that is a justification in itself.
However, I want finally to consider what have become related matters—the proposals for legislative changes that were once outlined in the original White Paper and then spatchcocked on to a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which was in turn emasculated in the House of Lords.

Mr. Gorst: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his dilemma with regard to the people who were named by Scottish Television? As I understand it, the worst cases do not necessarily involve those who had been named. Therefore, much of the right hon. Gentleman's argument could be based on a misconception. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot confirm or deny this, but the right hon. Gentleman's presumption is not universally accepted as correct.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that there is a problem, and I put it no higher than that. If we are planning to extend jurisdiction to men and women who have lived here for some time and who have been named publicly—and heaven knows I am not a lawyer and I do not understand these matters—I have no doubt what a lawyer representing those people would say if a case were to come to court. On the other hand, if these cases do not come to court, will any other cases come to court? As well as not being a lawyer, I am not a gambling man. Were I a gambling man, I should be inclined to put my money on the presumption that once this Bill has been passed into law we shall hear very little more of it.
Finally, I want to refer to the procedures that will be necessary if convictions are to be obtained. When this subject was debated a year ago, the House generally seemed to be of the view that it was very important that the normal laws of evidence and the normal principles of the judicial system should prevail. My understanding is that the changes that were once proposed for the purpose of obtaining convictions were lost with the Scottish legislation in the House of Lords. I hope that the Home Secretary does not listen to me only on those occasions on which he refers specifically to his attentive nature.
I have another question, which no doubt the Minister of State will answer in his winding-up speech. Can we be assured that neither through this legislation nor through related legislation are the Government contemplating special rules of evidence with a view to obtaining convictions? When the Home Secretary says that television links would be for the convenience of the defendant, that does very little to give me confidence in these matters. The intention of television links was to prevent witnesses from giving evidence which, because of intimidation, was inaccurate. In this case, the object of television links was to obtain convictions. I hope that we shall be told specifically and explicitly that the normal rules of evidence applying to courts in England or in Scotland will, for better or for worse, apply under this legislation. If conviction cannot be obtained under those rules, so be it.
My final word—and I fear that it is a word of reservation—concerns the technicalities of time. In the House of Lords, Lord Hutchinson said that, putting aside the principle of time, the fact of time would make prosecution impossible as so much would depend on identification evidence. He asked who could expect identifications to be accurate after 50 years. Some chilling words were quoted in the House of Lords in support of that contention. They were described as chilling, and chilling they certainly are. The Hetherington-Chalmers report says:
Because of the sickening efficiency of the mass killings, we found few Jewish eye-witnesses of the actual crimes. Those who had witnessed the atrocities were usually themselves killed. Many, however, were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence, and some were able to identify suspects from photographs.
I do not know whether that would be even remotely acceptable in a court of law. However, we do not want to see any adjustments made to the law in order to compensate for such a thing. I understand that the original intention of the Government was to make those adjustments. They were prevented from doing so only by the collapse of the Scottish legislation in another place.
Having said all that, I repeat what I have said five times already—I shall support the Bill this evening. But I shall do so in exactly the terms that I have described—as a declaration of our intention and of our principles. I shall not support the Bill in the hope that it will result in prosecutions, or because of belief in prosecutions. Rational assessment of what it provides suggests that neither of those things applies.

Mr. Edward Heath: In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he recognised that this matter divides the House deeply, as it divided another place deeply, and that the opposing views were held with great depth and the utmost passion. In saying so, of course, he was absolutely right. It is obvious from the voting lists that the matter has also divided the Cabinet. We now have a Prime Minister who voted against this proposal right at the beginning of the procedures. The Home Secretary said that it would be possible to see how views had changed in the intervening period. Everything that I have heard and read and thought since we last debated the matter here has convinced me even more that the reintroduction of this legislation is wrong. I deeply regret that the Government have reintroduced it in view of the divisions that I have


described. [Laughter.] I do not know why it is a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) laughs the whole time. This is a serious business.
Whatever decision is taken, we are within a few months of a general election. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the country—it is certainly not in the interests of our party—to have this matter brought forward at this stage when our country is confronted by so many other difficulties. It is said that it must be done because it was in the Queen's Speech. I am afraid that in my political life many matters were in the Queen's Speech but they were not proceeded with, for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad. I cannot accept that as a reason for reintroducing this legislation.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) emphasised that, in the intervening period, his doubts about this legislation had increased. I appreciate that, and I understand what he said about how that has occurred. I agree with him. Therefore, it is even more difficult to understand why he will vote for the Bill tonight than it was last time. I found it puzzling, but he knows best—he is his own judge. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will vote in favour of the Bill because we must show that we have not forgotten the holocaust. That is what his speech amounted to. I must reassure him on that point. We shall never forget the holocaust. The world will never be allowed to forget the holocaust, and quite rightly. The state of Israel will never allow the world to forget the holocaust, and all its supporters will maintain that position. It is a very weak argument to say that all his absolutely rational doubts are overcome by the fact that he wants the holocaust to be remembered.
I refer now to the contents of the Bill and to the other various reasons for it that have been put forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the crimes, when committed, were against international law. Why has not action been taken under international law? No explanation for that is given. Of course there is now no means of undertaking it under international law. If one gets to the practicalities, these events happened in wartime and when countries had been overrun by other countries, by armies that had been given instructions.
How many people in this House know the contents of international law today? How many of our troops in the Gulf knew whether the orders that they were being given were always in accordance with international law? They accepted that they were—we all did—but did they have any knowledge—

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I should like to finish the sentence and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In the forces we accept that we are given orders, and we carry them out. To say that, because there was international law at the time, it meant that people recognised what the law was and that they were guilty is not a justification for what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said.

Mr. Banks: One does not need a doctorate in international law to know that it is absolutely wrong to massacre people in cold blood in a concentration camp.

One does not need the niceties of the law to know that that is absolutely wrong. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that.

Mr. Heath: That is one of the points about international law. I return to my point. Why was not action taken under international law 45 years ago? There is no answer to that—none at all. A former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has been a party to the proceedings, nods his head in agreement with me.

Mr. John Patten: rose—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose—

Mr. Michael Latham: rose—

Mr. Heath: I am asked to give way to four people at once.

Mr. John Patten: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way to the Minister?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I can answer his question directly. In the period 1939–45, or in the years immediately after the war, there was no suggestion that any alleged war criminals were resident in this country.

Mr. Heath: Many of those brought to this country were believed to have been brought by British organisations to give us the information that we required. That was part of the understanding at the time. Will that be a justifiable plea if the Bill is enacted? We do not know.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who are the children and relatives of the victims, who were not born at the end of the last war, wish to know why action was not taken under international law against those people? Does he also accept that, although a distinguished but minute minority of lawyers expressed strong views against the Bill in another place, the great majority of lawyers, including younger lawyers, support the Bill and believe that its proposals are entirely practicable and just?

Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is debatable. I have not seen any opinion poll on it or found out the consensus among younger lawyers. It may be characteristic that those people who took no part in the war and knew nothing at first hand about the terrible things that happened now say, 45 years later, that we should take action. The weight of opinion in the House of Lords and among the Law Lords is undeniably against the Bill. No one can argue that, least of all the hon. and learned Gentleman.
No action was taken after those crimes were discovered because the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the day felt that we had come to the end of the process, and that was acceptable by Parliament.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry; I shall not give way.
It is suggested that we should overthrow the decision that was made with the support of both Houses of Parliament and embark on such a process 45 years later.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the Bill lies the collective guilt of Christian communities throughout the world for the enormity of crimes that have been committed against the Jews over 1,500 or 2,000 years and that culminated in the concentration camps? Therefore, is there not a genuine reason for the Bill coming before the House now?

Mr. Heath: No one questions the enormity of the crimes that were committed against the Jews. I did not intend to repeat that argument. I said in an earlier speech that the other regiment in our brigade was entrusted with going to the concentration camps and, obviously, we heard about everything that was seen there. When my regiment went into Antwerp it passed a concentration camp, so I know all about the enormity of the crimes. Throughout history there have been enormous crimes, but they should be dealt with at the time. We should be far more in tune with the times if we were to deal with war crimes that took place in the Gulf rather than trying to deal with so-called war crimes that took place 45 years ago. However, I accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) that the enormity of the crime demands action. No one disputes that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the wartime Prime Minister sought to draw a line under those events, he had not the slightest idea—nor had anyone else—that the criminals would receive the protection of British citizenship? As British citizens would have been liable, why should they get off scot-free by having become British citizens later?

Mr. Heath: I tried to serve Mr. Churchill as best I could during his period in government when I was a Member of the House, and I never found him ignorant of anything. Like other members of the Government, he was informed about why many of those people were being brought to this country and was told that they would settle here. That is a well-known fact, so I do not accept my hon. Friend's argument in this case, as in so many other cases.
I do not believe that we are embarking on a course that will be practically satisfying to the law or to the great majority of British citizens. As has been said, there will be show trials, and we know what the press can do with them. We have seen what they did with incidents in the Gulf war, when those who appeared on television were said to have been mutilated by their captors, but when they returned home they said that they had been injured in an air crash and had been treated well. The people of this country will be sickened, as they were in 1948, by the television and radio coverage, day and night, and by the coverage in the gutter press. It is not in the interests of Parliament to allow that.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Will my right hon. Friend enlighten the House and explain what he means by a show trial in the case of an offence for which prosecution must have the assent of the Attorney-General?

Mr. Heath: Does anyone imagine that the press and television companies will not make the most of any trial that takes place? My right hon. and learned Friend may

say that television cameras will not be allowed in the court room, but the television companies will still make the most of the event through dramatic descriptions every night. I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend frowns at that. Has he not seen the extent of recent television and radio coverage of the Birmingham Six trial? To suggest that the press will not make the most of any such trial is nonsense. It will be a repeat of the situation that arose in 1948; people will be sickened by it and, if it continues and enough people can be found to be charged, public opinion will rise in an outcry against it.
I return to the fundamental question of retroactive legislation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to find a way around it by saying that it was retroactive jurisprudence—

Mr. Hattersley: Jurisdiction.

Mr. Heath: I cannot accept that calling it retroactive jurisprudence is a valid distinction. We are changing the law, because 45 years ago the law did not apply. One can analyse the reasons and say that the law should have applied.

Mr. Hattersley: The law did apply.

Mr. Heath: If so, why did we not apply it? It was not applicable in this country, and it is this country's law with which we are now dealing. I strongly object to retroactive legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I bitterly object because the Conservative party, in particular, has always objected to backdating legislation.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We oppose retrospective legislation because it makes criminal today something that was not criminal when it was perpetrated Nobody in his wildest extravagance could imagine a time when to mass-murder people, as war criminals did, was not against the law of the world.

Mr. Heath: I know of my hon. and learned Friend's passion and motivation on the issue, but it is splendid of him to say that it was the law of the world.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was the law of the British citizen.

Mr. Heath: Will my hon. Friend remain quiet, just for a few seconds?
If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) went before the court as a barrister tomorrow saying that he was acting on the law of the world, what response would he expect to receive from the judge? We are dealing with the law of this country. My hon. and learned Friend says that, regardless of all our traditions and everything for which the world respects us and in which we take pride, we never act retrospectively unless it is the law of the world. I cannot accept that for a moment, even given the appalling circumstances in which some of those people may have acted in the past.
Therefore, I object strongly to the Bill. During my time in Parliament, Opposition Members have always gone to the utmost lengths to protect the right of the individual. The Labour party has been renowned for that and has fought many battles, both public and individual, and is still doing so. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why it is prepared to support a Bill such as this when we


have not acted for 45 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not everyone] I agree, not everybody. Now Labour Members say, "We must do this regardless of the consequences."

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because there is an answer to that point. We fight because we want equal treatment for every British citizen and people living under British jurisdiction. Cutting aside all the waffle, the Bill amounts to a technical adjustment to nationality law so that every British citizen and everyone living under British jurisdiction suffers or gains from equal treatment under the British law. It cannot be denied that that is all it amounts to.

Mr. Heath: If that is effective from the time the Bill is passed, all well and good. The hon. Gentleman will then say that everyone, whether they came to be British citizens or were originally British citizens, will be treated equally. But to make the legislation retroactive, turning it back 45 years to deal with events about which the people involved did not know, other British citizens did not know and on which Parliament, if it did know took no action, is entirely unjustified.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose argument I am following with intense interest. He implies that we are embarking on legislation that is unique in this country. He objects to that and has a right to do so. However, is he not aware that the Parliaments of two highly respected democracies—Canada and Australia—have already enacted such legislation and similar action has been taken by the Congress of the United States of America? The Bill is not unique. Many of us feel that it is tardy and should have been introduced before.

Mr. Heath: It is unique for this Parliament. If the Australian and Canadian Parliaments and the United States Congress have changed their law, that is a matter for them. It gives me no reason to follow them and no satisfaction at being asked to do so: let us be plain about that.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that this was a purely independent decision and that we were not being lobbied. We all know how this began—with one of the biggest lobbies in history, in California. It was highly financed in order to bring, not justice, but revenge and retribution. That is how it all started, and that is why the Bill has been introduced to the House.

Ms. Short: I intervene briefly, for the sake of the record. When Sweden considered the issue, it decided not to bring in such legislation. The United States decided to proceed by depriving people of citizenship, then offering them for extradition. Therefore, the argument put to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was inaccurate because different countries have proceeded in different ways and have not all passed the same legislation.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whose knowledge of Congressional proceedings is much greater than mine.
The retroactive part of the Bill is decisive and should never have been reintroduced into the House. I hope that

the House of Lords will kill the Bill. By that time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have decided to go to the country, and that will be the end of the matter.

Mr. John Morris: I shall come later to some of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
I am glad that the House has a further opportunity to consider its stance on this important legislation. Fortunately, as we have been told, there will be a free vote, and I venture my own opinion on the subject. First, I wish to spell out loud and clear that I yield to no one in my commitment, some of it emotional, to wish to remedy injustice and bring to book those persons who can be proved to have committed horrendous crimes. That is a moral duty.
I listened to the arguments when the original White Paper was presented and debated. I was concerned that, if evidence against a British-born person were found, he would be liable to prosecution, whereas a person who acquired British naturalisation or, as the Bill, states, was in the alternative a resident, after the commission of the relative facts, would not be. I believe that if the facts were proved, both categories of people should be dealt with in the same way. Naturalisation should not put a person, who later takes on himself the protection of the British Crown, in a more favourable position than a British-born subject.
I understand and sympathise with the objections of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to retrospective legislation, and there is an element of retrospection in the Bill. However, the crime of murder on whatever scale is not, in itself, retrospective. If the Bill is passed, we extend the jurisdiction—that is the retrospective element that all of us must face. I am prepared, and was prepared, to accept that on the basis that a British-born subject should not be in a worse position than someone who had come here at a later date. That was my approach and I voted for the principle of the White Paper when it was debated in the House.
By the time the first Bill was presented and debated I was not convinced about its implementation. That is why I welcome this third opportunity for the House to make a decision. It would be regrettable if, for some reason, the House decided that, regardless, it had to challenge a decision of the other place. I say that as one who believes fundamentally that the will of the Commons must prevail. But the opportunity means that it would be right and proper for us to consider afresh the practicalities of the Bill's implementation, if it becomes an Act, before any further vote. Today, I wish to dwell on the practicalities, which have caused me increasing concern.
The Hetherington-Chalmers report noted a number of prosecution difficulties, which its authors stated should not be underestimated. The report observed that there was a likelihood that many witnesses from eastern Europe would be unable to travel to the United Kingdom to give evidence by reason of their age and/or health. Some witnesses said that they would not be willing to travel, others that they were unfit to do so. The report's authors envisaged that there would be new developments, such as video links, satellites and various new devices to overcome those difficulties. That is why, like my right hon. Friend the


Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatterdey), I want an assurance that normal rules of evidence as regards presentation of evidence will prevail if the Bill is enacted.
Anyone with an ounce of experience of our criminal courts knows the difficulties in successfully persuading a jury of a prosecution, even when the evidence on paper might appear strong, and the warnings about identification that judges are enjoined to give, time after time. Judges also have to warn juries that honestly held views may well be mistaken. That is part and parcel of ordinary trials, where memories have to go back only for a few months, or perhaps a year or so. How much greater will be the need of warnings in the time scale of war crimes trials?
However, a more significant difficulty would face any prosecutor of alleged war criminals: the allegation of "abuse of the process" referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. That is an important concept in common law, where the court has an inherent power to prevent its process from being abused. The thrust of an application that an indictment might be quashed or proceedings stayed on the ground that they are an abuse of the court's process does not necessarily involve allegations of bad faith or manipulation by the prosecuting authorities. It is founded on the fact that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial and the consequences that flowed from that delay may make it impossible to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. The courts have the power to consider that issue and, if they so find, have the inherent power to quash the indictment.
The legal principles were reviewed by His Honour Judge Denison at the Central Criminal Court in the case of the Queen v. Grob and Hart. He stated that certain propositions were beyond dispute. They were, and are, first, that the court had an inherent power to ensure that its proceedings were not abused; secondly, that the power to quash an indictment to stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of a process should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances; thirdly, that the power should not be exercised merely because the judge thought that the prosecution should not have been brought or because he felt that, in some imprecise way, it was unfair to the defendant. The judge must balance the public interest that allegations of crime should be tried and determined with the defendant's interest that the trial must be fair. The fourth proposition is that undue delay in bringing a case to trial might amount to an abuse of process. I should add a fifth proposition, which is that the fact that Parlaiment had only recently considered legislation might be a matter to which the courts would attach considerable significance.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Morris: May I develop my argument?
In particular, the judge questioned whether "unjustifiable delay" by the prosecution was a precondition to a plea of abuse of process. He concluded that it, was not. He agreed with the judgment of Lord Justice Watkins in the Wapping policing case—the Cherry case. He stated :
We see no warrant for not following ample precedent now well set for the proposition that mere delay which gives rise to prejudice and unfairness may by itself amount to an abuse of the process. What has to be demonstrated to the court is that the delay complained of has produced genuine prejudice and unfairness. In some circumstances prejudice will be presumed from substantial delay. Where that is so it would be for the prosecution to rebut, if it can, the presumption. In the absence of a presumption, where there is a substantial delay, it will be for the prosecution to justify it.

The judge concluded that there were five matters to be considered in deciding whether a plea of abuse of process should succeed. I shall deal with them briefly. The first was the length of the delay. In the Grob case, the judge found that a delay of 10 years was substantial. In the more recent case of the Blake escape trial, another court found that it would not be an abuse of process to try the defendants, even though the acts complained of had occurred in the 1960s. Each case would be decided on its merits. It is obvious that the facts alleged in the war crimes cases would have occurred between 45 and 50 years ago or more. The longer the delay, the stronger the presumption of prejudice and unfairness.
The second matter to be examined would be the reason for the prosecution to justify the delay. In this case, there would be the absence of legislation. The third is the defendant's responsibility for, and past attitude towards, the delay, which might be one of indifference in these cases. The fourth is the proven or likely prejudice to the defendant. I believe that the 40 or 50-year delay is likely to cause much prejudice against the defendant in the preparation and in the conduct of his defence. At least, I am confident that that will be strongly argued. The passage of time means that the memories of the prosecution and defence witnesses fade. Defence witnesses die or cannot be located and documentation is destroyed. We have only to go to Westminster Hall to see a plaque commemorating the trial of Warren Hastings. I am not enough of a legal historian to say what length of time the facts covered, but, as we all know, the trial lasted for seven years and at the end of it Warren Hastings was acquitted. Let that be a warning to us.

Mr. Gorst: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned Warren Hastings, but to what extent does he believe that impeachment was an example of acting with hindsight?

Mr. Morris: I am not sure that it would be wise to pursue that matter now. I mentioned it merely as an illustration of lengths of time and of the effects in that case.
As the Home Secretary said in another context only last week, justice delayed is justice denied. The accuracy and reliability of recollection and identification are problems faced by the hundreds of prosecutors in our courts.
The fifth matter is the public interest in a disposition of serious charges and the conviction of those guilty of crime. While it must be right that it cannot be in the public interest that there should not be trials of serious criminal offences merely because of the passage of time, there is a counter-balancing public interest to ensure that trials are fair and take place within a reasonable time of the commission of the alleged offence.
On the basis of the foregoing, the prosecution would face a difficult hurdle if the plea of abuse of process were raised. The matter would, of course, be for the court to determine, but it is obvious that a strong case can be argued. Each case would have to be determined on its merits. That is not to say that the defence would be home and dry—far from it. All that I can safely conclude is that the Crown would face a difficult, but not necessarily insurmountable, task.
In view of those considerations, are convictions likely? We cannot be sure one way or the other. However, there cannot be much—if any—similar legislation under which the Crown would be faced with such a difficult task. Would


it help the rule of law if successful prosecutions were found, time after time, to be impossible? If so, the Act would be a dead letter and would fall into disuse. Parliament cannot and should not exempt the legislation from the plea of abuse of process.
I have drawn on my deep concern as a lawyer to outline some of the practicalities of successful prosecution and I have tried to give a balanced view of my concern. If the House wishes to pass this legislation—taking full account of, and giving what weight it wishes to, the difficulties—we must do the best that we can with it. We shall soon learn the attitude of the courts. I have thought about the issue long and hard over the past few months and, at the weekend, I was not sure how I should cast my vote—if at all—tonight. As I am so troubled in my own mind, I shall, after considerable deliberation, cast my vote against the Bill because I suspect its practicalities.

Sir John Wheeler: I shall be brief, because this is the fourth debate that the House has had on this important question. There is no doubt that the arguments for and against the Bill have been well rehearsed in all those debates, as well as in this one.
I remind this House, and especially the House of Lords, that in December 1989 the House voted in favour of the principle of legislation by a majority of 348 to 123—a margin of 3 : 1. The House voted in favour of the War Crimes Bill receiving a Second Reading by a majority of 273 to 60, an increased majority of 4 : 1, and in the free vote on Third Reading the majority was 135 to 10—an overwhelming majority of 13 : 1. Any objective observer would conclude that the will of this elected House of Commons is firmly in favour of the principle of the Bill.
Even in the House of Lords, when their Lordships rejected the War Crimes Bill, 74 Members of that House voted in favour of the principle and many others were sufficiently moved to write an open letter to the Prime Minister stating their opinion that the House of Lords is best used as a revising Chamber, and not to question the principles of the House of Commons' decisions on such matters of substance.
I will not reiterate all the arguments in favour of the Bill, which have been rehearsed many times. I want simply to state the principle that the Bill is not concerned with creating a new crime or a new kind of crime. What was done 50 or more years ago was so vile and infamous that those who did those things knew that they were committing a crime under any jurisdiction and under any circumstances. In the Bill, the House seeks merely to confer jurisdiction within the two criminal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom—in Scotland, and in England and Wales—to make it possible for a case to be considered before the criminal courts.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that bringing a prosecution will be difficult. All the factors to which he referred will have to be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. However, that is not the issue for today. The House is concerned with the principle of jurisdiction and with jurisdiction alone. If the House and Parliament as a whole pass the Bill and it becomes law, it

will be for the normal processes of investigation, of preparation and of prosecution, should there be accused to prosecute, to take into account all the normal procedures.
Those matters are for the future. We are concerned with the principle. I have heard nothing in previous debates, in the debate in the House of Lords or in subsequent discussions elsewhere to cause me to change my vote. The majority of my constituents expect me to vote for the Bill tonight and I will gladly do so.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like those from other political parties who have spoken, I want to begin by making it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting individually on this matter and not according to a party line.
I stated in an earlier debate that the proposed trials are misconceived. In the months that have passed, I have reflected on the state of British public opinion and on the difficulty of the trials with a view to considering whether it would be right to revise my views and to take a supportive line on the Bill. As time has passed, my doubts, like those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), have grown. I have been fortified in my earlier view that the trials are misconceived and cannot be attended by the standards of justice that we seek to ensure here.
Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers, who were responsible for the report that underlies the legislation, viewed the problem too exclusively from the point of view of the prosecution and inadequately from the point of view of the defence. That may not be surprising in view of the professional occupations that those two gentlemen held with distinction for many years. In their professional lives, they had been committed to the introduction of prosecutions in Scotland and in England but, when considering the potential predicament of the defence, they did not show the rigour appropriate to reaching a balanced conclusion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I must take my hon. Friend to task for a travesty. I do not know much about Mr. Chalmers, but I know that it was a travesty in relation to Sir Thomas Hetherington. Is not my hon. Friend aware that Sir Thomas, before he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, was the Treasury Solicitor who acted for a number of years to protect, for example, the interests of children before the court? It is wrong to suggest that he is wholly and subjectively in favour of prosecution.
Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House whether he believes in a statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions? If he does, will he tell us when, morally and legally, he believes that murder should stop being a crime?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not rest my case on biographical analysis of either Sir Thomas Hetherington or Mr. Chalmers, distinguished gentlemen though they are. I have no doubt that they did their best to come to the right conclusion and I have no doubt that they weighed their words with considerable care, but they condemned themselves out of their own mouths. I will allude later to some of the things that they said in their report that give rise to concern that justice and the standards of justice that we are right to seek could not be achieved if we enacted the Bill.
The Bill rests its moral case on the enormity of the crimes which, it is argued, have been committed by a number of citizens and residents of this country and which are beyond the memory of many of those who debate the matter today. It has been observed that several of those taking part in the debate, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), were not alive when these matters occurred. It is not in question that the crimes of which those concerned will stand accused are monstrous, that they are against the law of the countries in which they were committed and that they would be crimes according to the general principles of law recognised by all civilised nations. The question is not whether we believe that the crimes were of an enormity that must be condemned. The question is whether we can establish in a British court of law that the individuals who are allegedly responsible actually committed those crimes.
It does not seem right to pass a law, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested we should, to demonstrate to the world our abhorrence of the holocaust. As he systematically advanced his argument, with every sentence he seemed to strengthen the doubts that he had expressed in the earlier debate and ended by saying that he was proposing to vote for the Bill simply as a declaration of his revulsion against the crimes of the holocaust. I cannot and do not believe it necessary to make such a declaration. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who does not share that revulsion; nor do I believe that the British public need to be reminded of that fact.
One of the fears that I expressed in our earlier debate was that if the trials go ahead they may elicit some sympathy for those who are alleged to have perpetrated crimes of a kind that would stand the moral order on its head. That would be the reverse of sensible.
The crucial question that one must examine in this debate is whether the defendants to these charges could, in practice, experience the facilities that the prosecution will enjoy in handling the evidence against them. I doubt whether they can. My understanding is that most of the offences are alleged to have taken place in countries that are now part of the Soviet Union. Most of the cases will have to be subject to the evidence of eye-witnesses for identification. It must be common sense that after 45 or 50 years the evidence of the eye-witness is less than reliable. However, it is also more than common sense, because the evidence from earlier committees that considered the nature of such evidence was that even those who said in courts of law that they had seared into their memories the face of the man who committed the atrocity—I am thinking especially of the Virag case that was referred to in the Devlin committee report—had got it wrong. Identification years after the event turned out to be wrong.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when Sir Thomas Hetherington originally considered the issue he was sceptical about whether such evidence could be obtained and would be available to the defence? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, having taken a great deal of time and trouble to study exactly that issue, he concluded that the evidence was overwhelming and compelling?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall read from what Hetherington and Chalmers said on this subject, which I find most disturbing. They stated:
Because of the sickening efficiency of the mass killings we found few Jewish eye witnesses of the actual crimes: those

who had witnessed the atrocities were usually themselves killed. Many, however, were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence, and some were able to identify suspects from photographs.
I do not believe that the quality of such identification is likely to convict or to be convincing. It seems probable—

Mr. Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I shall develop my argument before giving way again.
It seems probable that such prosecutions will not stick. In introducing the Bill, the Government appear to contemplate those evidential problems being overcome by the arrangements that are being made for television and video recordings of evidence taken abroad. Such arrangements may be open to the prosecution, which can deploy the limitless resources of the state when gathering evidence, but I question whether such an approach will be open to any of the defendants who are seeking to rebut the charges—

Mr. Alex Carlile: It should be.

Mr. Maclennan: My hon. and learned Friend says that it should be. However, I am not aware of any arrangements that have been made to finance such a trawl for evidence for the defence and nor am I aware of the practicalities of so doing. We have heard about the old people who are to be the subject of the trial. It is beyond imagination that it would be within their physical capacity to conduct their defence efficaciously.
I further question whether the Soviet Union would feel as ready in such trials to volunteer evidence for the defence as it might for the prosecution. I recognise that substantial and important changes have been made in the administration of justice in the Soviet Union territories in recent years, but I am not unmindful of the fact that in the Soviet Union the whole history of the second world war is still fraught with high emotion. Many of those who would be charged under the legislation would be considered guilty in the Soviet Union of the most grave offences. It seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would offer to the defence the co-operation with evidence that it might be prepared to offer to the prosecution.

Mr. Gorst: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument tantamount to saying that if, when debating the passing of any law, the House can see difficulties with evidence, we should not pass that law, even if the crime that we are contemplating is odious?

Mr. Maclennan: In passing any legislation one should be aware of the consequences of what one is doing.
I find it impossible to accept the argument that this is not retrospective legislation, because it plainly is. The practical consequences of setting up such retrospective jurisdiction and of bringing into court a number of people who, by the nature of the process, will be gravely disadvantaged when compared with the prosecution lead me to believe that such cases would not be in accordance with the standards of British justice or with the European convention on human rights. Although the convention is not incorporated into the law of the land, it is none the less an indication of the standards that we have accepted internationally. Some play has been made of the international nature of the offences—

Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not yet intervened, when I have finished this point.
Article 6(3) of the European convention on human rights provides:
Anyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
Anyone who can say that that is possible or likely has taken a small step towards justifying the trials. However, one need only contemplate that to realise that, in practice, it will not be done.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has given way to me with his usual courtesy. I am trying to follow his argument because he seems to be arguing that the defence would be gravely disadvantaged, yet the argument used in the House of Lords by the Master of the Rolls and others, and in this House today, is that it would be impossible to bring a trial successfully because no jury would convict. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Maclennan: The Master of the Rolls has more experience than I of such matters and he may well be right. We are considering whether such trials should be set up and the prospects that would flow from the establishment of such trials. I cannot say whether a jury would be convinced. It seems highly improbable that a fair-minded jury would consider that the burden of proof had been discharged. Indeed, it seemed to be the purpose of the report to demonstrate that a remarkably small number of people among the cases that were considered would be likely to be convicted. However, there is a small number of people who would be convicted. I believe that the number has diminished by one death since the report was published.
The House should not legislate for demonstration purposes. We can demonstrate our revulsion of crime in many ways. We do not need to embark on retrospective criminal legislation to do so. I see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), shaking his finger at me. Perhaps he would like to shake his lips at me.

Mr. John Patten: I did not make a rude gesture from a seated position. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way with characteristic courtesy. He has been exact in his use of words so far, but he has suddenly suggested that the Bill is retrospective criminal legislation. Whatever else the Bill is, it is not that. It affects jurisdiction. There may be arguments about whether that jurisdictional change is retrospective, but the Bill does not change the criminal law in any way.

Mr. Maclennan: That is precisely the distinction that I cannot understand, although I admit that I am not a lawyer. If this country does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a crime, that is a function of the criminal law. It is the limit of the criminal law. The Government are seeking to change the jurisdiction of the courts to prosecute people for offences for which hitherto they could not be prosecuted. The Minister is logic chopping. We are not in dispute about the facts. How one cares to describe them is a matter of nuance which does not carry the argument much further forward.
I was impressed by the weight of argument against the Bill in another place. I do not normally consider that the House of Lords, for all its great expertise, is more in touch with the realities of life than the House of Commons. But on this occasion, the House of Lords predicted with much greater accuracy than this House did during our debates what would happen if the Bill were enacted and the travesty of justice that we ran the risk of initiating by putting the proposals on the statute book.
I hope that the House will think again and will realise that every month that passes makes it more likely that our standards of justice will be seen to be less than adequate and less than we aspire to in Britain.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I understand that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) intends to change his vote from an abstention to a vote against the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is changing from a vote for the Bill to a vote against it. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has changed his argument and his views, but not his vote. Nevertheless, there has been a change of opinion on the Opposition Benches.
The Bill seeks to deal with enormous and terrible crimes which excite revulsion and strong feelings among us all. That is common ground. But before I deal with the merits of the Bill, I should like to deal briefly with the constitutional point. Formally, the Government are within their rights to employ the Parliament Acts. But, in reality, what they are doing is an abuse of those Acts. It shows, at the least, a sorry sense of proportion.
The Parliament Acts were designed to prevent a minority party in the House of Commons from using its majority in another place to frustrate the will of the elected Government. Of course, that is far from being the case on this occasion. This is not a party matter and no democratic principle arises. All that has happened is that a heavy majority of the other place, with great knowledge of the subject, has voted strongly against the Bill and an even bigger majority of this House has voted the other way. In those circumstances, if the Government were not prepared to take the obvious and proper course—to drop the Bill—their duty was surely to amend it to make it more acceptable to the overwhelming majority in the other place. There is no excuse whatever for using the Parliament Acts.
The Government's behaviour is wholly disproportionate. As far as I am aware, the Parliament Acts have been used only to force through Bills of major constitutional or other importance such as Welsh disestablishment, Irish home rule and the Parliament Act 1949 itself. Furthermore, the Parliament Acts have never been used by a Conservative Government. They are being used for the first time for this, in many ways, highly objectionable little Bill. That is all the more ridiculous because, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, the Bill was annihilated in the Second Reading debate in the other place.
It was conclusively shown that the Bill was retrospective legislation, selective legislation and, in addition to those crippling disadvantages and contraventions of the rule of law, legislation which would not


produce a fair trial. Of course, the Government are not bound to defer to the vote of the other place. But surely they are bound to pay attention to the authoritative views stated there. The Government have singularly failed to do that.
I do not wish to be rude to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who made a statesmanlike and moderate speech, and still less to the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), but why in matters of law do they believe that they know better than the extraordinarily impressive array of legal and other talents which annihilated the rationale of the Bill in another place? I am aware that the prestige of the judiciary is not at its highest at present, but, rightly or wrongly, that is because we have had some alarming cases in which the Bench was slow to realise that innocent men had been convicted. The position is absolutely the opposite in this case. The Law Lords in another place are worried that under the Bill people will not be given a fair trial. Surely their views should be listened to carefully.

Mr. Gorst: Are not we safer with men of common sense than with men of erudition?

Sir Ian Gilmour: That is an uncharacteristically philistine point from my hon. Friend, which is singularly inapplicable to a Bill of this nature.
Lord Hailsham, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Ackner, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Goodman variously said that the Bill would not be British justice, that it would damage the rule of law and that it would debase the standards of British justice. Where is the matching expertise of my right hon. Friends in the Government which entitles them to dispute that view? We certainly have not heard any arguments against that view so far today.
Almost everyone agrees that retrospective legislation is undesirable. Lord Hailsham, Lord Ackner and Lord Donaldson, to say nothing of distinguished historians such as Lord Dacre of Glanton and Lord Blake, pointed out that the Bill was retrospective legislation. Of course, it is clearly retrospective. If it were not, we should not need the Bill. People could be prosecuted without it.
Equally clearly, the Bill is highly selective legislation. After the war I was lucky enough to visit the Nuremberg trials, which were presided over in a most distinguished and fair way by Lord Oaksey, then Lord Justice Lawrence. In 1946 much less was known about the iniquities of the Soviet regime. But even then a great deal was known or suspected. In particular, it was widely suspected that the Katyn massacres had been perpetrated by the Soviets, not the Nazis. So, even in 1946, it seemed odd that representatives of the Soviet regime sat side by side with British, American and French justices at the Nuremberg court. Yet in the circumstances of 1946 it was inevitable.
The selectivity of this Bill is not inevitable. It is confined to offences committed in Germany or in German-occupied territory and offences committed before 1945. Such selectivity is not inevitable and it is wrong. That was demonstrated in another place by Lord Hailsham, who said that there was no attempt to be fair, by the Scottish Law Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and by Lord Donaldson.
One may believe, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that the whole

business is declaratory—in which case I believe that it could be done better by a declaration than by an Act. Supporters of the Bill clearly want to see fair trials. Otherwise, the whole business would be pointless. Again, we have unanswerable testimony that that will not happen.
Lord Shawcross pointed out that in 1948 two distinguished judges felt that a four-year delay was too long. We are now faced with a delay of 50 years. Apart from the delay, Lord Shawcross thought that the changes in procedure that are being introduced to help the prosecution at the expense of the defence would prevent justice from being seen to be done. I was struck by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought that the changes in procedure were introduced to help the defence—that is exactly the opposite of the truth. All the changes are biased in favour of the prosecution.
Lord Goodman agreed with Lord Shawcross. Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, a most distinguished criminal advocate for the defence over many years, pointed out that naming suspects first and then building up evidence against them had led to many miscarriages of justice. He did not think that we could guarantee a fair trial.
Lord Ackner made a similar point strongly and expressed similar doubt about a fair trial being provided. Lord Morton of Shuna went even further and spoke of the practical impossibility of achieving a fair trial. Lord Donaldson had the same view. He said:
Identification after 45 years is a wholly preposterous proposition".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 1990; Vol. 519, c. 1174.]
Lord Blake is not a judge, but he was a prisoner of war. He said that he would have the greatest difficulty identifying any of his captors or guards 50 years later. Lord Bridge of Harwich believed that the procedures under the Bill would be a breach of the criminal process. Once again, I ask the Government: on what possible grounds do they think that they know better, on a specifically legal point, than the experienced and distinguished judges whom I named? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seemed a bit shaky on that matter this afternoon.
There is one final point. The enormous lapse of time since these dreadful crimes were committed means that the accused men—guilty or not—were very young at the time. In other words, they were small fry who were obeying orders. If they had disobeyed orders, they would certainly have been killed. No doubt they should have disobeyed orders, but I do not think that we can all be sure that we would have behaved heroically and disobeyed those appalling orders.

Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are known cases of soldiers serving in the German army who refused to commit war crimes and who managed not to be shot? Surely, to a large extent, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to find excuses for those appalling crimes. Day after day, men, women, children and even babes in arms were systematically murdered. Surely the fact that those soldiers were young at the time and were serving in the most monstrous army known cannot be an excuse for their not being brought to justice.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I have not been making excuses. The crimes were appalling. I am not sure that I, or even the hon. Gentleman, would have been heroic enough to disobey orders, and be shot for doing so. The hon.
Gentleman may be confident about his courage—I do not dispute his courage—but he is demanding great courage from everyone. But that is a relatively minor point.
The main point is that these people will not be given a fair trial, even with the highest testimony. The whole debate on this matter has shown that the Labour Government in 1948 and Sir Winston Churchill a little earlier were right in saying that the process of retribution should be brought to an end and that it had gone on long enough. Sir Winston Churchill said that a "sponge" should be drawn across the whole story of horror and atrocity. The Labour Government and Sir Winston Churchill were right then and the Government are wholly wrong now. For those reasons, I oppose the Bill.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I agree with the Home Secretary that, given the developments that have taken place since proceedings in the House just a year ago, there must be an opportunity to see how feelings have changed. Already in the debate we have had ample evidence that feelings are changing and of how far accommodation is possible between the two Houses. We heard a persuasive speech from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). There clearly is a case for such an accommodation.
Above all, there must be an opportunity for reconsideration—happily, we have been provided with that this evening—in the light of the debates in both Chambers. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham pointed out, the evidence so far suggests that hon. Members are re-examining their positions. At this stage, the argument seems to be going in one direction.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, nothing that any hon. Member says—no matter which side of the argument he is on—moves any of us either to forget the holocaust or to be prepared to forgive it. That is not in question. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I was intrigued to hear the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and then to note his final position. It was similar to the speech he made a year last December when we debated the principle. His argument then was persuasive most of the time, but suddenly he made a big jump and said that, despite all his reservations, he would go into the Division Lobby in support of the Bill. Apparently my right hon. Friend is content with taking a declaratory position. I thought that I heard him murmur—I hope that he will forgive me if I misjudge him—that, if the Bill is passed, we are unlikely to hear much more about it. If my right hon. Friend did not say that, that view is certainly held by other hon. Members.
I have sat through all the debates and wondered repeatedly about the confidence displayed by, and even the authority expressed on war crimes by, hon. Members on both sides of the argument. I did not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) or with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the passage of 50 years would make it almost impossible to identify a defendant or a witness.
Those who have known war will agree that it leaves a shadow across a person that never leaves him—it leaves an indelible mark.
The days of the war were extraordinary times and none of those who knew them can ever really communicate the flavour of them to those who did not. Anyone who has been a party to death, much less stood in its shadow or become reconciled to it, will know that the minutest details of the circumstances are etched on one's mind—Dr. Johnson was right.
Given the record of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular, I doubt whether too clear a distinction could be drawn, as some hon. Members insisted a year ago—notably the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—between the wholesale slaughter of defenceless women and children who played no part in the war and killing in the heat of battle.
If there is one phrase that I associate with war more than any other—I am reluctant to use it because it has become a cliché—it is the fog of war. War became a fog. No matter how long it went on, no matter how clear one's recollection of part of it, there was always a fog. Unlike some hon. Members, I doubt whether, this final step having been taken, we can put the horrors of war behind us once and for all or that, given Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and now Saddam Hussein, the Bill will act as a deterrent.
I have never been able to rid my mind of the concern, expressed by some hon. Members, about how the people of this country will be affected once the process starts. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has warned us of that yet again. I fear that this will stir cynicism, or worse, and at a time when Europe is looking to the future we shall be seen to be delving into the past.
I came down on the side of those who were against the proposal, and then only with great reluctance—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. For me, it remained a matter of doubt so that, in common with half the membership of this House, I abstained on Second Reading three months later. The general attitude of those right hon. and hon. Members who remained committed to the Bill struck me as half hearted. That appeared to be confirmed when the Bill's defeat in another place produced only one question to the Prime Minister the following Tuesday—from the right hon. Member for Castle Point. There was no passion elsewhere in this House on that day.
We owe this opportunity to reconsider the Bill to another place. We also owe it to the Upper House that many moral, legal and potentially constitutional issues were widely aired in the debate there, in a way that they were not in this Chamber. No one who has studied the debates of both Houses can deny that the other place had overwhelmingly the best of the argument. Despite some recent comments to the contrary, today's House of Lords is the very model of constitutional circumspection. There is no breach of the Salisbury convention. Their Lordships' treatment of the Bill is ample proof of the contemporary value of the other place as a second Chamber. It is making us think again. There is already evidence in this debate that other right hon. and hon. Members are thinking again—and I am one of them.
I am entirely persuaded by the plea of my noble Friend Lord Callaghan. I share his belief that the Members of this House ought to express their deep conviction and experience—especially our experience of war. Concern has inevitably focused on the moral and legal issues, but there


is considerable interest in the subsidiary matters. One is whether defendants can be guaranteed a fair trial after 50 years; the other is the nature of the charges, 'without knowledge of which, given the claim that the Bill is a unique provision to meet unique circumstances—although tonight the Home Secretary substituted the word "unusual" for "unique"—right hon. and hon. M embers may find it difficult to form a view.
The first of the major issues is moral outrage It will undoubtedly unite the House. Where mass murder is the issue, all right hon. and hon. Members will yield initially to the moral argument that we cannot tolerate in our midst the presence of unprosecuted persons, however few they are or however old they may be, who are perhaps guilty of certain crimes. There are crimes that cry out to heaven for justice.
What of the legal response involved? The Hetherington report refers to an element of retroactive justice—that is to say, laws passed against deeds that were not unlawful at the time that they were supposedly committed. In this case, the crime is murder by non-British nationals many hundreds of miles from British soil.
The most balanced case against altering the law was made in the Upper House by Lord Goodman, who is one of our most distinguished lawyers, and who is also Jewish. He said that parts of the Bill would alter the rule of law in Britain, and would thus do "appalling damage" to all the minorities who find their defence in it.
When I visited Dachau, I was interested to note that, long before the horrors that were perpetrated against the Jews in the early 1940s, waves of German socialists, trade unionists, gipsies, and similar dissidents and minorities had been taken there. In 1939 and 1940, the Poles arrived—most of them Catholic priests—and then there followed the torrent.
In the debate in another place, Lord Bauer said that he is of Jewish extraction, that his father was killed by the Nazis, but that he regarded the Bill as another step in the erosion of the rule of law. When moral outrage and the sense of legality clash with such force, where does one turn in a democracy but to public opinion?
I distinctly remember the decision, announced after the second world war, not to continue prosecuting or surrendering suspected war criminals because parliamentary and public opinion was critical of war crime trials. I attended the London School of Economics with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and often used to visit the House of Commons. Any suggestion then that war crime trials would be revived 40 years later would have been received with incredulity. If there is one institution in this land that would have protested if there had been even the smallest dissent against that decision, it would surely have been the London School of Economics, given its character then.

Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the British public had been told at that time that it was likely, because of inadequate vetting procedures or as a result of deliberate policy—because we needed information from the war criminals concerned—that such persons could come to this country and be immune from prosecution for ever after, British public opinion would have remained silent?

Mr. Duffy: I am truly astonished when I hear my hon. Friends impugn the motives of the postwar Labour Government at this late stage.

Ms. Short: In the debate in another place, Lord Shawcross made it clear that, when the decision was made in 1984 to stop prosecutions, the decision was taken also to free German generals, who were much bigger fish than the suspected war criminals who are the subject of the Bill. That kind of knowledge was available at the time.

Mr. Duffy: The Nuremberg trials were designed not only to punish barbarism but to act as a deterrent. The Chief Rabbi fears that if such people escape justice, humanity will never be safe. The trouble is that the revival of such trials might in some twisted minds have precisely the opposite effect to that which is intended. There is a risk—and one that I identified in the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—that the passage of time may change people's perceptions.
Late last June, I was walking down Leipzigstrasse in east Berlin before unification when a car pulled up alongside me and a couple of young Scandinavians jumped out to ask for directions. They did not want to know the way to Checkpoint Charlie, which was just behind me; to the Brandenburg gate, just two blocks away; or to the Reichstag just beyond. Instead, they wanted to know the way to the building immediately opposite the Reichstag—across the river from it—which they described as Goering's air ministry. There is a danger of desensitising a public already prone to saturation with the details of man's bestiality.
Just as Nuremberg had little moral influence on individuals, so has it failed to serve as a deterrent internationally. What is the purpose of continuing to hunt down the geriatric remnants of the Nazi scourge? Some hon. Members believe that it will encourage other nations—notably Germany, Canada, and the United States—to proceed against other alleged war criminals. Will it serve that purpose? The failure of this House to initiate any move against Saddam Hussein, who gassed an entire town, while tinkering with its own domestic legal process to permit the prosecution of three old men and the investigation of others residing in Britain will strike many people as being misconceived.

Mr. Winnick: This is one of the few subjects on which my hon. Friend and I do not agree, having achieved so much unity in the past few months in respect of the Gulf crisis. My hon. Friend referred to the gassing of the Kurds in March 1987—and other Iraqi atrocities were committed more recently in Kuwait. If those alleged to have committed such crimes are not brought to justice, but are found, even 50 years later, to be living in this country, for reasons that I cannot explain, is it suggested that they should not be brought to justice then?

Mr. Duffy: I am considering their prosecution now and in present circumstances. It is difficult to project one's mind 50 years hence, into the circumstances that would be present then. We have the advantage of knowing the present circumstances, even though there is a 50 year gap.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right—we usually fight on the same side. He makes a difficult demand of me, but we must agree that we would like a move to be made against Saddam Hussein now.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, and that at 6 o'clock the 10 minute time limit on speeches will begin. Those hon. Members who seek to intervene do so only at the expense of their colleagues' time.

Mr. Duffy: In view of those remarks, I shall proceed.
The recent concern for a just war in the Gulf reminds us how far even the most civilised nations have progressively departed from that idea in this century. The idea of the just war was complex, but ultimately rested upon the principle that violence may be used legitimately only against an opponent who possesses the means and the forewarnings with which to defend himself.
In part, it is because the victims of the crimes that we are debating were defenceless that we all feel so outraged. However, there were other defenceless victims of the second world war. They were killed by the war strategies of the democracies. Most were German—600,000 German civilians, the majority women and children, were killed in the strategic bombing campaign. Another 2 million German civilians died during the mass expulsions from eastern Europe in 1945—expulsions to which the western leaders acquiesced.
This is not an argument for moral balance, much less for moral equivalence. No moral equivalent accommodates genocide. The moral balance, measured in terms of the individual's conscience, even among service men on active operations in the midst of the war—notably following the 1,000-bomber raid on Cologne, the unfolding strategy of Bomber Command and the dropping of the atomic bomb and its repeat—weighed overwhelmingly to the allied side. Those of us who were serving worried throughout the war—we did not wait until the revelation of post-war horrors. We were concerned at every step throughout the war, from 1941, lest we were going too far. We may be made to pause for thought on the horror of total war if we remember that it was practised by democracies as well as by tyrannies.
Because our sense of justice is so keen and because our obligation to the rule of law has been consolidated by such terrible deeds, we must question how far we can be morally justified in tampering with the foundations of democracy—which is the rule of law.
The examples of Canada and Australia have been held up to us, although their experience is, as yet, limited. Interestingly, the United States has not yet passed legislation to enable trials of war criminals to be held there. It seems that the reason is that any such prosecutions would be in breach of the American constitution's prohibition on ex post facto law. Why are we prepared to proceed when our American friends are determined not to?
Finally, as with all serious questions of law and justice, what matters as much as how the law affects suspected war criminals is what it says about us—in whose name the law may or may not be changed. We may pursue the matter in such a manner and temper as to be exposed to the charge of vengeance—and there is no emotion which is so degrading of the human spirit—or we may decide that the spirit of the times is no longer in tune with scavenging the dreadful reminders of the past. Distasteful though it is that terrible crimes may go unpunished, there are times when

the past is best left to history. When people are guilty of such terrible crimes there is an ultimate justice from which they cannot escape.

Mr. Michael Latham: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) who served in the war. I was born on the day when Montgomery's Army entered Benghazi in November 1942, so I do not remember these things, but the hon. Member does and the House listens to him with respect.
Ten years ago I discussed with the late Airey Neave and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) a debate that my hon. Friend was about to introduce on whether Hess should be released from Spandau. Airey Neave said that he had served the indictment on Hess and I asked him whether he thought that we should have had all those Nuremberg trials. I asked whether he thought that we should have made a new law about waging aggressive war. I asked, "Why didn't you just stick them up against a wall and shoot them"—these mass murderers and Nazi leaders? I asked, "Why did you bother with trials?" Airey replied that there were plenty of people who thought that way but that if we had done that we would have been as bad as the Nazis. He said that we had to have trials to show that the world believed that men could be put on trial for such dreadful deeds. Of course, he was right—as he was right about so many other matters.
Nevertheless, when I first considered this issue, before the first of our four debates on the subject many months ago, I was doubtful whether this was the right way to proceed and I shall tell the House why.
I wondered whether the Bill would lead to an increase in something that has been below the surface throughout this debate, but is lurking there—whether the Bill would increase anti-Semitism. I wondered whether people would say—as was hinted in one speech today—that the Jews had got up this Bill with their money and their pressure.
Therefore, I spoke to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I am not allowed to call him my hon. Friend, although he is honourable and he is my friend. No one has fought harder for the Jewish people than he has done. I asked him whether, as a Jewish leader—which he has been for many years—he was worried that war crimes trials would increase anti-Semitism. He said, "No, I am not worried and neither is the community. This must be done." If that is what Jewish leaders and the Jewish community think, who am Ito stand in the way and to say that it would stir up anti-Semitism? I am meeting that argument head on, because I know that it is in many people's minds.
As a Gentile, I receive large amounts of anti-Semitic literature every time that I speak on this subject or on Israel, even when I write letters to the Church Times. If I receive that, how much worse must it be for people such as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West?
I decided that the argument that trials would stir up anti-Semitism has to be resisted because a greater evil has to be fought—the evil of violence and mass murder, which has to be met and fought every time that it comes to light.
When I was wondering what I should do I also thought of the extract from the Torah which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) quoted from the Dispatch Box today:
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


I wondered whether we should pursue the line of leaving this matter to history, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe suggested. As we are quoting a religious book, I also asked myself what theology is so robust that it can withstand babies being thrown into crematoria. What theology can say that we should put all that behind us and forget it? I do not know what theology that is, but it is certainly not one that I can understand.
I thought about all those matters and I decided that all I can do in the House is to vote, and that I cannot withhold my vote in favour of putting in place legislation that will do something about those who may have been responsible for the murder of millions.

Ms. Clare Short: I am very troubled by the Bill. I voted for it last time, for two reasons. The first was the horror of the holocaust—one of the most evil events in human history, if not the most evil, which can never be forgotten or forgiven. The second was my anxiety that we should enforce international law. The 1947 Geneva convention was a consequence of the horrors of the second world war and the Nuremberg trials. I want that convention to be implemented throughout the world so that the tyrannical and monstrous treatment or people can be dealt with without the need to resort to war and the destruction of the innocent.
I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein was entirely in breach of the Geneva convention, which is part of our law, when he gassed the Kurds and prosecuted a war against Iran; yet our Government offered him export credits. The Geneva convention obliges us to arrest representatives of that Government in any country in the world. Similarly, I have no doubt that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge have been gravely in breach of the convention, and that under our law—and international law—we should take action against them. But we supported a coalition that included representatives of the Khmer Rouge.
Painful and ironic though it is, there is no doubt that Israel is also in grave breach of the convention because of its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. International law and our law oblige us to enforce the convention and take action against representatives of the Israeli state.
I do not believe that such action should be simply for revenge: it would be taken to prevent the recurrence of such oppression. If the international community would rise to the challenge, we should be able to protect human rights across the world, and prevent the brutalities that happen everywhere. I voted for the Bill previously because I believed that if we enforced a law on war crimes we might prevent future crimes of the same kind.
Having followed the debate in the House of Lords, I became increasingly worried about the likely consequences of the Bill. I remember appearing on "Question Time" at about that time, and saying that I might have to reconsider my vote. I said that I would have to read the Hetherington report, for instance.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Short: I will in a minute.
I received a good many letters from Jewish people who said, fairly and rightly, that the horrors of the holocaust had been such that no one involved should get away with

it. I also received many letters from older service men, saying, "All sorts of atrocities are perpetrated in a war. We have had the war crimes trials; it is wrong for us to return to the matter now." I found the difference of opinion interesting.

Mrs. Golding: I have a copy of the record of the Second Reading debate, along with the details of the vote that followed it. My hon. Friend's name is not recorded in either.

Ms. Short: I may or may not have missed one of the votes, but I voted deliberately—[Interruption.] We can return to the matter later, but I remember the occasion and I remember going through the Lobby. We can double-check, but I voted. I think that my hon. Friend should be careful. I will see her later. I will find the record. I object to such challenges. I know that I voted. If my hon. Friend is calling me a liar, we will sort it out later, but I am telling her now that I voted.

Mrs. Golding: It is not me; it is Hansard.

Ms. Short: I voted, and I voted for the Bill. My hon. Friend is pushing it too far.
Because of my increasing concern, I read the Hetherington report this weekend, and became increasingly troubled by it. I was struck by the enormous difficulties faced by the people who have to travel around the world trying to find out the real names of the individuals concerned, establishing whether they had found the right ones and collecting evidence in faraway countries from people who did not speak English and were also very elderly. I felt increasingly that we would not be able to obtain accurate information, and that it was dangerous to contemplate any trials.
There can be no excuse or forgiveness for such terrible crimes as those committed in the Baltics, the Ukraine and Byelorussia; but they were committed 46 years ago, and the witnesses involved are very old, as are those alleged to be guilty. It is hard to believe that identification will necessarily be accurate or, indeed, that the evidence will be so. I fear that fair trials will be impossible. I also see a real danger that, as frail and elderly people are brought to trial, the effect on public opinion will be the creation of sympathy for those who are charged and the lessening of anger about the evil of the crimes that were committed. People will not be reminded of the horrors of the war.
My other fear is that, because we ceased to try war criminals in 1948, we will be haphazard about who is tried now. Some war criminals who committed much worse offences than others may get away with it. Surely it is deeply wrong that, because of the way in which the Baltic issue arose, the less evil criminals may be the ones who are brought to trial.
In Australia, where powers have been taken to try war criminals, no trials have taken place. In Canada, there has been one such trial. A man was tried for enormously serious offences—organising the shipping of large numbers of Jews to concentration camps. There were many witnesses; the man was acquitted. That is another angle. First, the Bill might result in unfair trials; secondly, public opinion might be sympathetic to the old men, rather than angry about the evils that had been committed; thirdly, serious war criminals might be acquitted because of the passage of time and the attendant doubts. That is what happened in the Canadian case.
If the Bill is not passed, it will be open to the Government to consider stripping British citizenship from any individual against whom there is evidence. The possibility of extradition also remains open. I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that the Bill is not the only possible remedy.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady passed over one point very quickly. Is she advocating the extradition of people from this country so that they can be tried elsewhere? The only countries likely to accept them would be those that retain capital punishment.

Ms. Short: I am not advocating anything. I am simply saying that I oppose the Bill, and that, if we reject it, we have other options in regard to individuals against whom we have seen no evidence. I have read the report: it tells of serious allegations. There is a historical description of the awful things that happened in the Baltic states and the Ukraine, but we do not know the nature of the allegations made against the individuals whose cases have been looked into. If we reject the Bill, and if some of the evidence becomes available—if we want to take action against some monstrous war criminal living in our country—it will be open to us to consider stripping him of British citizenship, symbolically and demonstrably. Alternatively, we could decide on deportation or extradition. We may want to consider that in future, given the changing situation in the Soviet Union.
The crimes that we are discussing—the holocaust, and all that happened in the second world war—can never be forgiven. The guilt of those involved goes with each of them to the grave. I oppose the Bill, however. I do not believe that the trials would lead to justice; I fear that they would lead to a diminution in public anger about the historical crimes that were committed. I believe that the House would be making a grave mistake if it proceeded with the Bill.

Mr. Julian Amery: First, let me tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has consulted the Division list and has confirmed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) voted. No doubt her hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) will apologise in due course, but not in the 10 minutes allotted to me.

Mrs. Golding: rose—

Mr. Amery: No. I will not give way.

Mrs. Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Latham: It is injury time.

Mrs. Golding: It is indeed. I assure the House that I have consulted the record of the Second Reading debate and the subsequent vote as recorded in Hansard and that my hon. Friend's name does not appear.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This may be a point of interest, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It does not concern the Chair which way an hon. Member voted, or whether she voted at all.

Mr. Amery: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will allow the clock to start now.
We all agree that it is a long-standing convention that in the ordinary way the Executive should never interfere in the judicial process, but here we are not concerned with the judicial process; we are concerned with new legislation. Therefore, it is not only our right but our duty to consider the political circumstances that surround the Bill. It is aimed at a certain number of individuals of Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Ukrainian origin and citizenship in their own time. They joined the German forces to fight against the Russians whom they regarded as their natural enemies. None of that in any way excuses any crime that they may have committed. However, within a few months of the crimes that they are alleged to have committed, Soviet citizens were committing similar crimes in much the same locality. The Bill does not provide for the prosecution of any of those individuals if, by any chance, they happen to be already resident in this country, which is unlikely but not inconceivable.
The Ukraine and the Baltic states are, alas, again on the agenda. The process of liberation or reoccupation that characterised the events that we are talking about is already, in a smaller way—thank God, so far—taking place. I doubt very much the validity of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the importance of a declaratory gesture. This Bill would be declaratory against those who sided, as they thought, with those who were fighting for the liberation of their country against the Soviets, but it would not be declaratory against those who committed similar crimes on behalf of the Soviet Union. That would be to send the wrong message.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) talked about show trials. He was completely right. I am sure that the judiciary would conduct the trials in an honourable way, but we have to consider not only what our press would say; imagine the meal that the hard-line press in Moscow would make of them. They would show up Baltic atrocities on the Nazis side but would make no reference to any atrocities that might have been committed by the Soviets in a similar context. We must take account of the international context.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) movingly drew attention to the war crimes being committed by Iraq now, against both the Kuwaitis and their own people. Apart from loose talk, I can find no procedure for penalising those who are committing such crimes—the leaders in particular. As far as I can make out, we are referring in this Bill to people who would be the equivalent of non-commissioned officers or warrant officers in this country.
Apart from the issue having been blown out of proportion, the Bill is historically wrong. We are always told that generals want to fight the last war. Here it is a question of the lawyers wanting to fight the last war. They are trying to fight the unfinished business of the second world war without paying the slightest regard in the Bill to the crimes that have been committed since then. That must offend our sense of equity and justice. To make just another declaration against the unforgivable holocaust and to say nothing about the crimes that have been committed since seems to me grotesque.
One of the curious aspects of eastern Europe at present—I follow its affairs as closely as I can—is how little


evidence there is so far of vengeance and vendetta. There is the German protest about Mr. Honecker being taken off to Russia for medical treatment, but there have been very few charges. We should take that into account. A degree of merciful oblivion is required because, Lord knows, the crimes committed in eastern Europe, not only by the Germans in their day but by the Soviets in theirs, are equally unforgivable. We have to live with that. The time has come, to use Churchill's phrase, to pass a merciful sponge over the record. The House ought to do nothing that would revive old antagonisms and reopen old wounds. That would be beneath the dignity of this House.
At a time when our judiciary is under some question, the Bill that we are discussing does not seem to provide a solid basis for a constitutional challenge to the other place. We should do well to reject it and to think again about the future—about whether there is the need for wider legislation to encompass war crimes in all parts of the world, if war criminals should come to reside here. I hope that they will not, but if that happened perhaps there ought to be another measure to deal with them. Entirely to direct our fire at a few old men who are the relics of the second world war and to ignore in any declaratory announcement what has happened since would be little short of obscene.

Ms. Short: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was accused, in effect, of being a liar by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), may I say that on 12 December 1989 we endorsed in a vote the need for legislation on the basis of the Hetherington-Chalmers report. I voted for that. Thereafter, I abstained in the vote on the Bill, and I shall vote against it tonight. That is the position, which I wanted to put on the record.

Mrs. Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady sure that her point of order is for the Chair and something that I can resolve? I cannot resolve much, but I shall try to resolve this point of order.

Mrs. Golding: Was it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to call me a liar?

Ms. Short: I did not. I said you called me a liar.

Mrs. Golding: I was quoting from Hansard, which cannot lie, as we all know.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had enough points of order which do not relate to the debate.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: have read every speech on this matter since the principle of the Bill was first debated in December 1989. One of the most impressive facts that I have learnt from those speeches was the absolute sincerity of Members of the other place and of this when addressing themselves, without rancour, to the issue. An interesting facet of the debate is that Members of both Houses have expressed their differing points of view with great skill, thought and responsibility. This, therefore, is one of those occasions when there is no need for any hon. Member to get upset. The House is addressing the issue in a highly responsible manner.
I remind the House that this is a Bill to
Confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the law and customs of war".
We are being asked to pass legislation that would enable our courts to deal with breaches of the laws and customs of war. I remind the House that for over 100 years we have been signatories to a bank of international jurisprudence and international law—treaties and conventions that addressed violations of the laws and customs of war. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether it is correct to suggest for one moment that the House of Commons was wrong to introduce the Bill. Before the mid-1980s, the House, the Government and the country were not aware that war criminals were living in Britain, so there was no need to question our commitment to the European convention on human rights or the Hague convention. To comply with conventions made following the second world war, all civilised nations accepted that the passage of time should not inhibit a country in dealing with war criminals.
In the mid-1980s we became aware of the possibility of war criminals living in Britain and hon. Members set up a war crimes group, of which I had the honour of being a member. We carefully considered the information that was available to us. To its credit, the group made it abundantly clear that it would not reach hasty conclusions and set about, through the Home Office, seeing how best it could assist the House in reaching a reasonable conclusion—thus, the Hetherington report.
After that, as senior hon. Members will understand, the Government had to go through the processes of drafting a Bill and so on, so it was not a hasty process. In 1989, we were asked to discuss the principle of the Bill.
The Hetherington report deals with restrospection. Page 92 says:
Both the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) contain Articles to prevent the introduction of retrospective legislation. Both, however, contain provisos to allow the trial and punishment of persons for acts or omissions which were, at the time they were committed, already regarded as criminal by the international standard.
That is quite clear. Page 97 says:
In our view, to enact legislation in this country to give the British courts jurisdiction over murder and manslaughter committed as violations of the laws and customs of war would not be to create an offence retrospectively.
That was the view of people who had considerable legal experience.
Some specious arguments were advanced in the other place on whether we should proceed with the Bill. If we are complying with international jurisprudence on retrospection and therefore not committing an offence in our own country or abroad, it is pertinent for someone to ask, "After all these years, should we hesitate because of the possibility of an unfair trial?" As I said in debate in March last year, that is not the job of this House. Many lawyers who spoke on the Bill in the other place and in this House made the mistake of addressing a court. We give courts the powers to work. If a judge believes that a trial may be unfair, he can stop it; he does not consult the House because that proviso applies to all trials.
Another objection to the Bill is that more than 40 years have passed. I understand that a Member of the other place said, "After 40 years, old men forget." I served as a young officer in the war and I am now 72, but I am neither old nor do I forget. If I committed an offence, no hon. Member would say "Do not go to court because you cannot defend yourself." I am quite capable of doing that.
We are tampering retrospectively with laws on evidence, which is not our job. Our job is to provide the courts and investigating authorities with the powers to get on with their work. I do not want to criticise lawyers, but sometimes they think that they have a monopoly of reason and experience. Often, they have a monopoly of mediocrity. Those who have been in public life for many years know when to advance an objective case. No prosecuting counsel, Director of Public Prosecutions or person involved in instigating committals will proceed if there is a lack of evidence or doubts about a case.
It was said in the other place that these trials will cost £12 million. Not long ago, £5 million was spent on finding out whether five officers were telling the truth in the Cleveland child abuse case.
I have firmly mentioned the duties of the investigating and judicial authorities. Our duty is to comply with the letter of the Bill and to enable courts to bring someone to trial if they can do so.

Mr. John Gorst: Although my argument is a factor for consideration, it is not necessarily the main justification for giving the Bill a Second Reading. The evidence against some of the alleged war criminals is not known only to the Home Office. Although some of the names on the Hetherington list have been broadcast on Scottish Television, it does not follow that they are the chief or the only people who will be investigated.
Information is now available that war criminals are living in our midst—this is the new factor that did not exist 40 years ago—but do we want to endanger ourselves with the ugly and distasteful alternative of trial by media? Make no mistake, names may be leaked and the media will decide what to do if we do not pass the Bill and provide a legal procedure.
The accused will have more protection from the processes of law than he would from the jungle of media harassment. In court, he will have to face evidence, and only evidence that is admissible and properly tested. If, as the Law Lords and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) suggest, that evidence is inadequate, the accused will be exonerated; he will be found not guilty and acquitted and that will be the end of the matter. If we do not provide for a trial in a court of law, the "evidence" that will be adduced by the media will be based on hearsay; it will be untested, tendentious and partial. The verdict will never be promulgated. The case will be inconclusive and an ugly slur will remain. I therefore believe that the Bill is in the interests not only of justice—as has been argued by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—but, ultimately, of the accused.
I accept that an unpleasant prospect is no excuse for choosing an undesirable or unjustifiable legal procedure. That would not be my contention. However, I do not believe that the Bill is either desirable or unjustifiable. It is a necessary deterrent to show not only the willingness of the House to act but its unwillingness to forget. The Bill is justifiable because the infamies committed were so infamous. That has been true not just before their

perpetration but at the moment of their commission and ever since. The fullest possible penalties and legal processes are called for, and are justified.
Last Tuesday, when we discussed the procedure motion, I asked whose conscience matters most in our system of government: is it that of the elected or of the erudite in another place? If we will the end, we must justify the means. If we want justice, we must legislate to obtain it. Leaving the matter to the media would be an abdication of responsibility and would be quite without justification.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: To the best of my knowledge—in case hon. Members should wish to interrupt me—I have attended every one of our debates on this matter. I have intervened from time to time, but this is the first occasion on which I have made a speech—and I came to the House today not to make a speech but to listen to the opening speeches and as much of the argument as possible.
Let me make it absolutely clear that I have not read the House of Lords debate. I make no apology for that. I was elected to the House of Commons to use my common sense and judgment to the best of my ability. We make mistakes, and sometimes we have a second chance and can rectify them. Nevertheless, on this issue, I have remained consistent throughout.
I read the Hetherington-Chalmers report, and, some time after it was published, I had the opportunity to listen to both authors address a small conference here in London and to question them. At that time, we also had the opportunity to question the head of the war crimes investigation offices in the United States, Canada and Australia, and I took that opportunity. I was convinced that they had made the right decisions and were proceeding correctly. I accept that the American circumstances are different. The Americans have done something that, frankly, we would not have contemplated doing. In some ways, I am sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is not in the Chamber. The Americans have extradited back to the Soviet Union and effectively deprived people of citizenship—a concept that both Government and Opposition have forsworn. If the Bill fails, that is not an option. I cannot understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood can think that it is. How can she think that if, for whatever reason, this House, or both Houses, decide by a majority not to proceed with the Bill, there will be a long stop—that we can try something else such as depriving people of citizenship or extraditing them? We have forsworn that concept throughout by accepting the recommendations of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, which sets out the matter in detail. For reasons that all of us on both sides of the House understand, we would not extradite; that is not an option. The Bill represents our only opportunity to redress a wrong and correct an anomaly—and I accept that, in this context, that is a somewhat neutral word—in our nationality legislation, so that everyone who is at present a British citizen or residing in Britain under our protection is treated equally.
In an earlier intervention, I caused my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to be accused of saying that this is just a declaratory Bill. I do not think that my right hon. Friend put it quite like that and it was unfair of hon. Members to


suggest that he did. In my intervention, I suggested that, once the House had passed the Bill following an open debate based upon the evidence put to us, it would not matter to us if the prosecuting authorities in their wisdom decided not to take a prosecution or, once someone had been charged, not to proceed with an action in court. That is the decision of the prosecuting authorities and it is not for the House to prejudge the issue by refusing to pass the Bill. That needs to be made absolutely clear, and as a non-lawyer I can say that because I do not have hang-ups about whether I am in court or in the House of Commons. I am here as a legislator. Unlike the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities, I do not have to make those decisions.
I do not think that enough has been made of the fact that we are not talking about crimes committed during conflict between armed forces. We are talking about the mass murder of unarmed civilians of all ages—the wiping out of whole villages. In some cases, it never even came to concentration camps; the victims did not even get that far.
Suppose that the House does not pass the Bill. I hope that that will not happen, but, if it does, the Government ought to respond by ensuring that volume 2 of the Hetherington-Chalmers report is published so that the British public can make their own judgment. It could be published without the names—I would not go so far as to suggest that they should be included—but the British public should see the details of the crimes to which volume I refers and the reasons given for our passing the Bill. It is crucial that the matter should be out in the open so that the British public can judge for themselves.
For all the world, one might think that war crimes prosecutions had stopped around the world, but the German Government are still proceeding with war crimes prosecutions—not vigorously enough, in my view, as General Mohnke is still collecting his £400-a-week pension and the Germans still have not made up their minds whether to take any action. After the war, the British military forces were looking for General Mohnke. The evidence is there in our files and the Germans are considering the matter. If they agree that it is right to do so, they will press a charge. They have not wiped the slate clean. The Germans are also looking for Mr. Honecker. One presumes that they want him back so that they can look at what happened years ago. Time cannot diminish the gravity of the crimes that we are discussing, and it would send the wrong signals to the rest of the world if we suggested that it could.
The concept of deterrence has been mentioned. I agree that the Bill will not necessarily provide a deterrent because we are talking about a short period of history during which a small group of people have escaped justice because of a quirk of nationality law. We are told, "This cannot happen because the quirk has been corrected both by British and by international law."
During this debate and earlier debates on the subject, I have been reminded of a telling phrase uttered at the Dispatch Box 10 years ago and in a slightly different context. The former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, said of a statement by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), then herself Prime Minister, that it was like the rustle of dead leaves. This Bill relates to issues that date back much further than the issue to which my right hon. Friend referred on that occasion. However, crimes were committed and people are living in this country who have not been charged.
The money argument about the cost of the trial and the investigation is irrelevant. The former Home Secretary stated that there would not be a shortage of money to pursue a defence. The trials would be fair, but this House and the other place must consider the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). These issues will not go away. Many people outside the parliamentary system have names and dossiers and that information may be misused. There could very well be trial by media.
We should not be afraid to legislate because we are worried about the standards of The Sun. Similarly, by not legislating, we might give a free reign to the gutter press. We can control matters by legislation with an organised process under which people can receive justice.
The threat of being charged may have a salutary effect. It should be made abundantly clear that not all war crimes were committed by the losing side. In respect of evidence, there is chapter and verse to prove that, if General Patton had survived the war, he would have been in real trouble.
However, in this case, evidence is available and charges have been made. Over the past five or six years it has become clear that this country did not know that we had allowed alleged war criminals to reside in this country and obtain British citizenship. If they are criminals, those people clearly told lies to obtain citizenship. Therefore, it should be possible to charge them under a law that would treat them the same as me and everyone else in this House. I see no justification for allowing a quirk of British nationality law to prevent them from being charged if there is sufficient evidence for it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: A terrible thing happened half a century ago. Millions of people died and millions more were deeply and unimaginably wronged. The acid is still gnawing at their souls. They exist and they survive, but their lives have been destroyed.
There is a justifiable motive for the Bill which one would share if one were an heir to the holocaust. One could not rest until justice had been seen to be done. We can begin to understand the feelings of some of those people, but we cannot begin to understand their full depth. However, we are entitled to ask questions on their behalf. Would it help if these dreadful details were laid bare and they were forced to relive the horrors of the past in a show trial or a series of show trials? Whatever my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may say, there will be show trials as was the case with the Demjanjuk trial in Israel. The hopes of those unfortunate people may be justified if the prosecution is successful. If not, would not it be a harrowing experience to fall at the final hurdle?
No one would dispute or wish to stand in the way of the motivation of justice. However, if justice is unlikely to be secured, is not that a justification for the view that the exercise is best avoided on everyone's behalf?

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: No, I do not have enough time.
There is another motivation involved apart from the motivation of justice. Here I am forced to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He seemed to say that the Bill was unnecessary; prosecutions would be unlikely to succeed; the Bill is not good legislation and is unlikely to


produce justice, but none the less he was forced to vote for it because he might otherwise be labelled anti-Semitic. He would be happy to see a law placed on the statute book, not for the better governance of Britain, but, as I said in my point of order earlier, as a gesture. In one of those characteristic acts of political courage that we have come to associate with the right hon. Gentleman, that exercise in moral gymnastics has been devised purely to get a persistent and effective lobby off his ample back.
What is it about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? He can argue passionately for a principle and believe passionately in it, but he is forced to vote against lest his motivation is misconstrued. I would rather be a used car salesman. As I said, there is another possible motive—and that is propaganda. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has naively allowed himself to become the tool of such an exercise.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary why the Bill was restricted to 1939 to 1945, to areas of German influence and to British citizens. He said that there were no cases from Japan, from other periods or other parts of the world. However, the people about whom we are concerned were not British. Their crimes were not committed in Britain and they were not under British jurisdiction. Their victims were not British. If the principle of the Bill holds good, why not extend it to those cases in which British interests and individuals were involved? This is, after all, the British Parliament.
I am afraid that we have allowed ourselves to become involved in a propaganda exercise which happens to be against British interests and British policies in the middle east. We are puppets on a string. My fear is that we are dancing to a tune that is played by the most sophisticated and heavily orchestrated lobby of the post-war world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) explained more tactfully than I, is it not at least possible that the victims and bereaved of this the most savage, extensive and depraved mass crime of our century are being used cynically in an act of policy by the state of Israel to build up a wall of moral blackmail behind which the excesses and ambitions of that state can shelter without criticism?
We all mourn the holocaust and its victims, both dead and alive. However, we should have nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) mounted once again his favourite hobby horse and it surprised none of us that he saw a conspiracy linked to the same sources to which he often refers. The only surprise was that black people did not get a mention. We know how hostile and antagonistic he is to people who do not have white skins.
I do not dispute for a moment that the Bill is in many ways unsatisfactory. I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. He understandably argued the pros and cons and concluded that he would vote in favour of the Bill, but I share some of his reservations about the Bill, although perhaps not to the same degree. The machinery that the Bill provides is, in many ways, unsatisfactory.
I recognise some of the obvious difficulties in dealing with crimes committed 50 years ago. Neither am I unaware that if the measure become law and charges are brought, there could be what I and others would describe as misplaced sympathy for the defendants. I recognise the limitations and that is why I have reservations about the Bill.
However, what is the alternative? If there is sufficient evidence that those who are known to have committed the most monstrous crimes against humanity are living in Britain, and if under the present law no action can be taken, we would be turning a blind eye. We would simply be saying that it was unfortunate and that we wished that we had known of those people's records when they arrived here. However, we would be able to take no action, despite the fact that the Home Secretary told the House that there seems to be substantial evidence at least against three people currently living in this country.
I cannot accept that justice should fail to be done because such crimes were committed so many years ago. Of course, it would have been much better had justice been done at the time. The allies could have pursued Nazi criminals at the end of the war. Action after the war was promised when this House first learned of the extermination camps. There were statements about the atrocities. The late Sydney Silverman—to his lasting credit—said that the House should rise in memory of the victims. During the war, there was a very strong feeling that action should be taken. I understand that feeling. Of course, very little was done.
To the credit of the allies, justice was undoubtedly done at the Nuremberg proceedings. There were other proceedings too. However, by 1948–49 the cold war had begun, and there was not much enthusiasm for such action. Many of the sentiments that were expressed today by the right hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Mr. Amery) could be used to describe feelings in the Federal Republic of Germany during the 1950s and the 1960s. There was no real wish for proceedings against people accused of Nazi war crimes. Only because of international pressure—to some extent, pressure inside Germany, but pressure that was much more international, which the hon. Member for Northampton, North might regard as some kind of conspiracy—did the German authorities agree that such crimes against humanity should not be covered by any statute of limitations.
In the period since we last debated this subject, the Gulf war has taken place. One thinks of the atrocities that were carried out in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's thugs. I take the view that the people who committed those crimes—not 50 years ago, but within the last few months—should be brought to justice.

Mr. James Coachman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a major difference between the crimes committed recently in Kuwait and Nazi war crimes? Those that were committed in Kuwait are very fresh in the minds of the victims, whereas, in the case of those committed 50 years ago, identification is quite impossible.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my point. We know that many Nazi war criminals escaped by fleeing to various countries. If the people who committed atrocities in Kuwait in the last few weeks and months were to escape justice, and if, in years to come, they were to be


found in Britain or some other country, they ought to be brought to justice. The fact that justice was not done at the time is no reason for its not being done at all.
One thinks of the moors murders. Suppose that the people responsible for those crimes had not been brought to justice at the time. Would anyone argue that they should not now be brought to justice because too much time has elapsed? Consider the case of the Birmingham Six, who have now been found innocent. In November 1974, 21 people died in Birmingham as a result of the pub bombings. Many others were injured, and some were paralysed for life. Why should not the people actually responsible for that crime be brought to justice, after however long a period? It will soon be 17 years since that crime. However desirable it is that justice should be done at the earliest possible date, it is better that it should be done late than that it should not be done at all.
I should like to see established an international court, under the auspices of the United Nations, to deal with crimes such as we are debating today. Hon. Members may know that in the early 1950s the United Nations decided in favour of the creation of such a court. In view of the state of international affairs in those days—a situation that continued until recently—it is not surprising that agreement was not reached. I hope that, in the more relaxed international atmosphere of today, the United Nations will find it possible to agree to the creation of a court where such crimes could be tried. Several hon. Members have referred to other crimes committed during, and since the end of, the second world war—for example, those committed under Stalin. An international court such as I have in mind could be used to try such people.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reiterated views with which we are familiar. He has been against this measure from the very beginning. He referred to crimes committed in Kuwait. If we had listened to his advice, those crimes would be going on right now, and would continue into the future. The fact that they have been brought to an end is due to the war and to the way in which the allies liberated Kuwait. As I have said from the very beginning, what happened in Kuwait was a just war, as the second world war was. Everything that has happened vindicates my views and the view of the large majority of hon. Members.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by talking about vengeance. I am certainly not interested in vengeance. I hope that I never have been, and I hope that no hon. Member is. It is said—whether it is true I do not know—that at one stage during the last war Winston Churchill suggested that a large number of Nazi officers and officials should simply be taken out after the war and shot. I do not think that there is any record of such remarks, but it is said that Churchill made them. Perhaps he changed his mind. Had such action been taken, I would have opposed it. That would have been vengeance. What I am interested in is justice and the rule of law. Summarily shooting people—whether criminals connected with the Nazi regime, or Saddam Hussein's thugs—is not the sort of action that I want to see taken. None the less, this measure, with all its limitations, and despite all the reservations about it, is one means of ensuring that justice will be done, however long the delay.
So long as I live, I shall remember not only what I have read and what I have heard from other people, but also the camps that I saw in a cinema newsreel in 1945. I know that several hon. and right hon. Members actually experienced

the liberation of concentration camps. I was too young to be involved in that. I do remember, however, seeing film of the opening of Belsen and other extermination camps where monstrous crimes had been committed. Then there were the events such as those at Babi Yar, near Kiev, under Nazi occupation. Day by day, men, women and children were systematically slain. Does anyone suggest that because those crimes were committed so many years ago, at a time when the people concerned were not British citizens, the criminals should be allowed to go scot free? I cannot accept that—which is why I support the legislation.

Sir Bernard Braine: I have been deeply impressed by the speeches of the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I too do not seek vengeance: I seek justice.
I am a veteran of the second world war. During that war, I was conscious that we were fighting against something bestial and evil. The war crimes trials in Nuremberg proved that that was so. Not until 1986, when it was first alleged that Nazi war criminals were living in this country, was the spotlight turned on this aspect of the matter. We have come a long way since then.
In February 1988, the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry was set up. At that time none of us could have imagined what would emerge—that living here in Britain, having secured the high privilege of British citizenship, were individuals against whom there was powerful evidence of involvement in the wholesale murder and manslaughter of innocent civilians.
There have been many references to what happened in the concentration camps. I have not seen the evidence, but I know what Nazi henchmen did in the occupied territories. They committed appalling and abominable crimes against defenceless citizens who were sometimes pushed into their own churches and burnt alive. I can think of scores of such cases that have been made known to me over the years.
Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, his Scottish equivalent, are very highly respected former prosecutors. They were the most experienced persons who could be found to assess the evidence and to apply the strict criteria that must be met before such evidence could be admitted into a British court. They produced two reports, the second of which, quite rightly, remains unpublished and locked away and contains the evidence available against a certain limited number of individuals.
Since the publication of the inquiry's report the Government have been consistently committed to war crimes legislation. I am glad that they are not wilting now. I congratulate them on reintroducing the measure so speedily. Successive Home Secretaries, supported by former Home Secretaries now on the Opposition Benches, have wholeheartedly supported the Bill. They have seen the unpublished report, and are among the Bill's most important proponents.
I fail to understand how, particularly during the Second Reading debate in the other place, some could argue that there was insufficient evidence. Had they, by some chance, seen the unpublished report? Were they unaware of the appalling behaviour of the Nazis and their henchmen during the second world war? Have they forgotten


Oradour and Lidice and the thousands of other Oradours and Lidices that occurred across occupied Europe and the Soviet Union? Were they oblivious to what happened at Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Dachau and all the other abominable centres of human persecution that were wiped away as a result of Nazi defeat?
Far from having any wish for vengeance, I have been the chairman of the British-German parliamentary group for the past 30 years. Why?—because the first victims of the Nazis were the Germans themselves and because one of the greatest happenings in Europe since the war has been the way in which the German nation has purged itself of the Nazi past and governs itself in a democratic and sensible way.
There is no vengeance in my advocacy of the Bill, but—I hope that the Government will not wilt on this point—I demand justice. The matter is simple. Those who have been accorded the high privilege of British citizenship should not be excused the liabilities that go with it. I inform the faint hearts and the doubters that if a British subject allegedly committed murder overseas during that period he would be liable to prosecution. If we had known then what we now know, the persons concerned would never have been granted British citizenship. That is what lies at the heart of the Bill.
Earlier, it was asked why the legislation applies only to world war two. The answer is clear. It is because that is where the loophole exists. People who committed crimes after 1957 are already punishable under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Prosecutions for wilful killing and torture may take place in the United Kingdom wherever in the world the offence was committed and whatever the nationality of the alleged offender at the time. That is the answer. We are plugging a gap in our experience.
Some have argued that there would inevitably be show trials. Why should that be? The standards of evidence necessary for conviction would be the same as for other criminal trials in the United Kingdom. Witnesses are cross-examined, documentary evidence is subject to forensic testing, and experts are heard. One does not need to be a lawyer—it is a distinguished profession—to know that judges in this country can exclude any evidence if it appears that the accused has suffered prejudice from the circumstances in which that evidence was obtained. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) asked a perfectly legitimate question, and I can easily understand why he asked it. If an accused is unfit to mount a proper defence, and if the judge is not totally satisfied that the accused had every opportunity to defend himself, the case will not proceed. In short, anyone who believes that there will be show trials does not have a very high regard for the British system of justice.
What is the point of trials so long after the offences were committed? Again I refer to the point I made at the outset—justice. Is someone prepared to tell the family of the innocent bystander who was killed by the IRA last month at Victoria station that the perpetrators, if they are fortunate enough to escape capture for a certain period, will not be brought to justice for their crime? We have no time limit in this country for the prosecution of murder, and nor should we.
A 45-year lapse between crimes and their prosecution is in fact a period of borrowed time. It was time borrowed by

the perpetrators of crime for the enjoyment of freedom, democratic rights, and for living under the rule of law, when all along justice had a prior claim. Indeed, such persons have enjoyed the very rights they denied to others. Borrowed time should count against the evader, not for him.
May I say something about the rejection of the Bill in the other place? It is a Government Bill, proceeding through Parliament in exclusively Government time. It was drawn up by the Home Office and presented to the House of Commons by the Home Secretary. The measure was confirmed in the Queen's Speech. Last year the Bill received large majorities in this House—the elected House. On Second Reading the margin was a substantial 213 votes. Members of this House are responsible to electorates. We must listen to our constituents and consider their interests before making any decision. Free votes are not taken lightly in this House. The other place should be made to understand that.
We must understand also that the crimes that we are considering were not committed in the heat of battle. I emphasise that. They are cases of the premeditated mass murder of men, women and children—often committed hundreds of miles from the war front. During the debate last year in the other House it was said that the crimes that we are considering were committed as acts of state and regarded by the Nazis as part of their war effort. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Harold Walker): Order.

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. I wish to quote Kitty Hart, a survivor of the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp and a witness in 1939 at the trial of Gottfried Weise in the High Court of Wuppertal, Germany.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even the Father of the House must observe the rules that have been laid down by Mr. Speaker.

Sir Bernard Braine: I wholly agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a speech. During the previous Second Reading debate I attempted to argue the case on the merits. I do not propose to repeat everything that I said then. It was not an easy speech to make, and I do not wish to make it again. It is in the Official Report for anyone who wishes to read it.
When we spend much of our time rightly talking about the victims of crime, we should not forget that there are still living victims of the crimes under discussion. They remember what happened. They have as much right to have those crimes dealt with in accordance with justice as has a victim of any other crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke of difficulties for the defence in obtaining a fair procedure and fair acess to witnesses. He suggested that there may be what he caricatured as show trials and that justice could not be done to both sides. I say to my hon. Friend and others who share his doubts that justice can sometimes be a slow train comin'. Justice is not a train that runs to any timetable or even on a predictable track. However, it is a train that will


not be derailed if its destination is true. If it would be unjust for a court to proceed against a defendant—perhaps because the way in which the evidence had been assembled would put the defendant at a disadvantage or because he is so infirm that it would not be fair for him to stand trial—justice will not be derailed, because the judge will rightly say that it would not be fair for the trial to go ahead.
If, however, a defendant is fit to stand trial and the evidence has been properly assembled, it will be open to the defence to obtain the necessary evidence. That has been done. In two recent cases—the United States against Artishenko and United States against Kowalchuk—the defence counsel could obtain his evidence. In the first case, the defence counsel secured the evidence of six Soviet witnesses even though he requested it only on the day of travel to the Soviet Union. In the second case, Soviet witnesses provided exculpatory evidence for the defence. On the basis of that testimony, the United States justice department terminated proceedings against him. Those are just two examples of circumstances in which Soviet authorities co-operated with both sides. They are conscious of their position in the world and know that they must meet international standards of justice in these matters.
We discussed earlier the opinion of lawyers. I hope that most other practising lawyers have as high a regard as I have for the opinions expressed by their Lordships in the other place. Like all senior practising lawyers, I have a particular regard for the opinions of the Law Lords. However, they are not necessarily infallible; and they represent a small, although extremely distinguished, minority of lawyers in this country. Although they provide wise opinions on cases that are referred to them on appeal, by the nature of their position they are judges who have not heard cases at first instance for many years. With the greatest respect, they are perhaps not the best qualified people to judge how jurors, witnesses and lawyers react or how the atmosphere of the court is reactive today.
As I am conscious of varying opinions on the. Bill, I have gone out of my way to find out what my legal colleagues think about it. I have spoken to many dozens of young lawyers throughout the country at various times. Some of them share the misgivings expressed by hon. Members, but the great majority of them—especially young lawyers whose strongly burning fire of an ideal of justice has not yet become case-hardened—believe that the Bill should proceed. They believe that, when one talks about show trials of war criminals, one is not talking about a case that is qualitatively different from, say, a celebrated murder trial. We have a free press and if they want to make a show of a case, it is up to them to do so. It is certainly not up to the House to stop them.
Most lawyers believe that the courts can exercise the necessary control, especially now that more safeguards are built into our judicial system than at the time of the Birmingham Six trial. That control can be effective in ensuring that justice is done. I have seen cases in which one would have thought that there would have been tremendous prejudice against the accused because of what they were alleged to have done, because of their colour or where they came from, or because they had allegedly committed a crime that was prevalent in an area to which they were strangers. Yet many of those cases resulted in acquittals. Juries are capable of fearsomely and fearlessly administering justice so that those who are not guilty are

acquitted and those who are guilty, but against whom guilt cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, are acquitted. I do not think for one moment that we have reason to doubt the ability of British juries to reach such just conclusions in war crimes trials.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to speak so soon after my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who leads Back Benchers on human rights issues, and even to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The number of times that the hon. Member and I speak on common causes is becoming embarrassing. It is a pleasure to speak because I was getting fed up with hearing hon. Members on both sides of the House say that the crimes in question were the most heinous ever committed in the history of the world but that we should do nothing about bringing to justice those who committed them.
Two weeks ago I went to Majdanek. The fact that so few people remember Majdanek is one reason for introducing the Bill. It was a concentration and extermination camp just outside Lublin, about two hours drive from Warsaw. It is not remembered because fewer people died there than in Auschwitz, a little further down the road. However, 360,000 people perished in Majdanek between 1941 and 1944. One can go into the huts crammed with victims' clothes—one of the huts has children's clothes piled from the ground to the roof. One can see the showers into which they were told they were going to be cleansed five minutes before they were put into the gas chamber next door. One can also see the empty cyclon B containers that killed, in 15 minutes, the women and children, the weak and the old who could not work. There are also containers of carbon monoxide—there was insufficient cyclon B—which took 45 minutes to asphyxiate the innocent. I walked around Majdanek practically alone two Saturdays ago and saw the trenches that had been dug. In one day, someone gave the order to shoot 18,400 Jews as they stepped off the backs of lorries, and they fell into the graves that had been dug for them. In one day, 18,400 people were systematically shot on the orders of a human being.
Therefore, when somebody asks whether the perpetrators of such heinous crimes should be excluded from justice because they have taken advantage of a loophole in the legal machinery that we were supposed to provide but did not provide, what am I to say? What would anyone who went round Majdanek, or anywhere else that such crimes were perpetrated, say if they knew that the people who ordered them and were responsible for them were alive today and sheltering in this country because there was a defect in our legal machinery?
I shall try to deal with two points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). He said that bringing back the Bill was an abuse of the Parliament Acts because it could have been amended; but if he had listened to the debates in the House of Lords he would realise that it was clear that they did not want an amendment: they did not want the Bill. The Bill could not have been amended as they wanted because that would have destroyed it. This is precisely when the Parliament Acts should be invoked because what was


being said in the Lords was totally different from the view repeatedly expressed by the overwhelming majority of the elected representatives of this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that he wanted to know why the Government knew better than the distinguished lawyers who made the speeches in the House of Lords. Not all distinguished lawyers are opposed to the legislation. If Lord Elwyn-Jones, the former Lord Chancellor, had lived, he would have spoken in favour of the Bill. Unfortunately, he died on the day it was debated.
Their Lordships expressed much emotion because they were closely connected with the events at the end of the war. They were involved for different reasons—perhaps they were in the Government who allowed the war criminals into this country, knowingly or unknowingly; perhaps they knew of the loophole and did nothing to close it; perhaps they were responsible for, or were a party to, letting the Cossacks go back to the Soviet Union where they died and so felt guilty; perhaps they believed that more anti-Semitism would be stirred up if the Bill were enacted; perhaps they fought valiantly in the war and were sick to death of everything to do with it and so did not want to go through the horror again. Whatever the reason, their Lordships were too closely involved with events immediately following the war. Sometimes people who are too closely involved are not the best ones to make judgments. That is not to say that their Lordships' speeches were not worthwhile, should not be listened to or examined. They are listened to and have to be examined as to the viability of their arguments.
Some of their Lordships said that the Bill was retrospective legislation. It may be, but that is not of itself a reason for not having such legislation. Such legislation is bad, evil and not to be countenanced when it makes something a crime today that was not a crime when it was perpetrated. It is for that reason, and no other, that retrospective legislation is wrong. When the crimes were perpetrated, those who shot the 18,400 people or gave the order or gassed or hanged or burned or flogged to death or drowned the people in Majdanek could not have been in any doubt that what they were doing was a crime against the world order and the law of every civilised country. It might be time to "throw in the sponge" if the crimes had not been so heinous—shoplifting or, perhaps, one murder—but we are talking about mass murder and genocide. Perhaps the Bill should be extended to other war crimes, but that is no reason not to introduce the Bill in its more limited form.
There are doubts about the procedures and identification, but Sir Thomas Hetherington made it clear publicly that the identification issue will not often arise. In many of the cases that he considered there was no dispute about identification—the dispute involved what was done. There have been objections that there will be no committal proceedings, but they are not held when a voluntary bill of indictment is introduced or in fraud cases, because we changed the law to get rid of committal proceedings. Live television from abroad was introduced in this House under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and is being extended to Scotland. Statements of the dead are admissible in our courts, provided that the judge thinks that justice is being done. The judge provides the protection and has overall

responsibility to ensure that justice, not injustice, is done. Whether prosecutions will or will not be possible is not a matter for us. We are talking about the machinery that gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the opportunity to say that there is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward, for a judge to ensure that justice is done and for a jury to decide whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. All we are being asked to do is to fill the gap in the legal
It has been asked why no action has been taken under international law. It was because we are now a party to the Genocide Act 1969, which is as retrospective as anything could be—it is specifically retrospective but it does not cover the war crimes of the second world war. The "violation of the principle of British justice" has been mentioned, but the principle of British justice is that justice be done, the wrongdoer be caught and sentenced, there is no time limit on murder, still less on mass murder and everyone should receive a fair trial.
That is British justice. British justice demands that the perpetrators of these crimes should be brought to justice. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on bringing the Bill again before the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I greatly appreciated the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he said that he would not presume to give advice to any of his colleagues. However, I am conscious of walking on eggshells. I simply say for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that I have been to the holocaust museum in Jerusalem recently. I did national service in an armoured regiment, and when we fired guns on the HÖhne ranges, the commander made all national service men go to Belsen; Colonel Douglas Stewart was right to insist on that.
I should like to talk quietly to the Home Secretary and I hope that he will forgive me if I do so in terms of my constituency. The first Polish armoured division came to West Lothian—to Fife and the west of Edinburgh—during the war. As the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) knows, and as was outlined in the Hetherington-Chalmers report, many of the Polish service men said, for self-evident reasons, that they could not return immediately after the war. Those Polish people have, by their vigour and intelligence, greatly enhanced the life of my constituency and its surrounding constituencies.
When I was a teacher I taught many of the first generation. Those children, including the Nawrockas, were bright and vigorous. I was greatly influenced by a man called Stefan Haluch, who was later to be a headmaster in one of the West Lothian schools and whose brother was, like many others, massacred with the Polish officer corps at Katyn. For many years it was said that the Germans were responsible for that massacre in the forest. Now, we know differently; it was as Mr. Haluch always told me. From that experience I have concluded that we had better be careful about trying to sort out blame, even after 20 years, let alone 50.
The formidable nature of the task is referred to in the report, paragraph 8.26, the issue of the Cyrillic alphabet, and identifying precisely who was whom. The problem of identification to which Hetherington and Chalmers referred is formidable.
I also wish to put it on record that, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, in one particular case, I had a great deal to do with William Chalmers who was the deputy Crown Agent. In my opinion, he is a man of considerable seriousness and quality of mind whom I greatly respect.
I shall continue to be rather anecdotal. When I was a very new Member of Parliament, I was invited to a Latvian wedding in the village of Stoneyburn in my constituency. It was a lovely occasion, but late into the night many things came out into the open which left an indelible impression on me, especially the number of relatives of the families who had been killed not by the Germans—we have to face that—but by the Russians. Subsequently, it has become only too clear that the British agents who landed on the Latvian coast—the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) may know exactly what I am talking about, because Philby and others may have been involved, but I must not pursue that idea—bumped off the Latvian people, often family by family. That caused great suspicion and resentment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is right to say that that is covered in the report.
I remember that as a young Member of Parliament I sat late into the night at that wedding in my kilt. I was told that I should be very careful of one Latvian immigrant because his background was terrible. I asked his name—it was Hamish Mackenzie. I do not think that his name in Latvia was Hamish Mackenzie. There is a problem of identification—it is bad enough after 20 years, but after half a century the practical difficulties are formidable.
I admit that I was greatly influenced by the speeches made in another place, especially that by Lord Goodman. I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he is worried by an element of what I believe Goering called "victor's justice". That is always a problem. We cannot pretend that all the injustices have been on one side, as I have tried to outline with reference to the Germans and the Russians. I ask the Minister to comment on what can be encapsulated as the problem of victor's justice.
Time is short, but I should like to comment on one other matter. It is incredible that the House should spend six hours of prime time discussing this issue when the overnment have found no time since the third week in January to discuss the urgent problems of the Gulf.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Thirteen million Jews died.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand that, but the here and now is rather more urgent for today's debate. We should be discussing who decided to bomb the road to Basra, what we are going to do about the continuing crimes of Saddam Hussein in Kerbala and elsewhere in southern Iraq, what our relations should be with the Shi'ites in the south and with the Kurds in the north, who are in the middle of what seems to be a bloody and open war. I am the last to complain because I was lucky in the ballot on Friday, but let us make no mistake—it should not be left to private Members' time to discuss the health hazards of cholera, typhoid and hepatitis, which will become more acute as the cool spring develops into a scorching summer. We should be discussing what on earth to do about the oil slicks and, above all, about the oil fires. Those issues are more urgent for six hours of prime time—

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to speak about the immediate problems of Northern Ireland, but I do not see what they have to do with the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Although we have a wide ranging debate on Second Reading, it is not as wide ranging as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is trying to make it.

Mr. Dalyell: I bow to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is arguable whether we should be discussing war crimes committed by all sorts of people rather than events that took place before any of the party leaders were born. We are in danger of being highly selective about this issue. Why go back to Latvia and Lithuania? In answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), it strikes some of us that, as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, we are dealing with some rather lowly people. No one is suggesting that the major decision-makers are the objects of the present debate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I wish that this problem had never arisen. I wish that our predecessors had not allowed to exist the conditions which permitted these people to slip into this country. I almost wish that these people had never been identified. However, they have been identified and we cannot leave it at that.
Britain's reputation for justice and the honour of this country depend on the Bill being passed. The House is being asked simply to allow that jurisdiction be granted over all current British residents to cover crimes that were then and are now breaches of international law. It is not being asked to act as judge or jury or even as prosecutor. It is being asked to allow a legislative loophole that relates solely to jurisdiction to be corrected and to allow British justice to prevail. Prosecution is and will be—quite rightly—a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Judgment is and will be a matter for the courts. In an individual case, either or both may conclude that a conviction cannot or should not be achieved, but that is a matter for them, not for the House.
Why should not we sweep the problem under the carpet? Why should not we—as some hon. Members suggested earlier—let bygones be bygones? The answer was given by our erstwhile colleague Lord Waddington who, as Home Secretary, said on Second Reading last year:
sometimes one is brought face to face with facts that cannot be buried, with deeds so terrible that they cannot be forgotten, and as long as one of those responsible survives, the world will cry out for justice."—[Official Report, 19 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 896.]
What brought him face to face with such facts, especially as he was, as an eminent Queen's counsel, initially sceptical about all this? Unlike us, he has read part two of the Hetherington-Chalmers report which contains the detailed evidence on many of the cases concerned. Is not it ironic that that part remains confidential—so we cannot see it—to safeguard the entitlement of the accused to a fair trial, which their victims never had?
I declare an interest. My father was a Dutch refugee who fled to this country in 1940. When he returned to his native Holland in 1945, he found that 52 of his relatives were missing. They had been torn from their homes and loaded on to trains. Men, women, children and infants in


arms went eastward to the death camps and never returned. My father believed in many of the great qualities of this nation and he believed especially in British justice. I hope that this House, the representative assembly of the British nation, will pass the Bill and let justice be done.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Many arguments have been put in favour of the Bill tonight and I will not detain the House by repeating them. Let me for a moment take the House back to the time when the dark clouds of war were gathering across Europe and to a time when thousands feared a knock on the door, which could mean that they would be dragged out of their homes, that their weeping children would be torn from their arms and that wives would be separated from husbands to be herded like cattle into trucks, to be beaten, starved and humiliated and to end their days in the horrors of the concentration camps.
Are we, who, in those dark days, stood virtually alone against the evils of Adolf Hitler and all that he stood for, to condone by our inaction the crimes committed by those who enacted those murderous deeds? What is our answer to the defenceless, innocent people who suffered so much and who were deserted by so many who did not hear their cries or who turned their faces away from the suffering? Are we, who speak for the British people, to allow those evil men to remain safe in our country in the knowledge that as long as they live within our shores the law can never touch them? Are we to allow this country to continue to remain a haven for those criminals? If those murderers had been born British, they could have been tried under our present law, but because they have become British citizens or have settled in this country since the war, as the law now stands, they cannot be prosecuted. Should not all who live in this country be covered by the same laws? I believe that they should be, and that is one of the many reasons why I will vote for the Bill.
The Bill may not lead to the single prosecution of a war criminal who resides in this country, but at least it will give those criminals the bitter taste of fear that one day someone may knock at their door and take them away to answer for the suffering and misery they inflicted on so many innocent men, women and children.

Sir John Stokes: I am dismayed that the Bill should once again be brought before us. As the noble Lord Hailsham said recently:
our objections to it are ones of principle. It is retrospective, discriminatory and it will be impossible to guarantee a fair defence. It is a thoroughly bad Bill.
I am rather surprised that the Government brought back the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister voted against its introduction on our first vote of principle. Such post hoc legislation does Parliament no good. It is wrong to alter the general law for special cases. If the Bill were passed, it would cause enormous legal problems. There would be a change in the way in which the law of evidence is presented and there would be huge difficulties over identification after such a long time.
We all know and understand how appallingly heinous the misdeeds were, but that does not mean that we have to alter the laws of England. The Bill is all about special

cases. It is narrow in scope and deals only with alleged war crimes in Germany or in German-occupied territory which took place between certain dates. It does not deal, for example, with war crimes committed elsewhere or with crimes committed since 5 June 1945.
The Bill has never been adopted as official Conservative party policy in any manifesto that I have seen and it has not been put to the nation in a general election. I have not had a single letter in support of the Bill and no one seems interested in it.
I am also dismayed and surprised that a Tory Government—I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to this—should seek to pass such an odd law by resorting to the Parliament Acts, which were passed by a Liberal Administration and then by a Labour Government after the war. I thought that the Tory party believed in a second Chamber and that it supported the House of Lords. The debates in the other place were of a high order and many men of wisdom, experience and knowledge of the law expressed powerful objections to the Bill. This House has neither the expertise nor the experience to challenge the views so powerfully presented in another place. We are not a complete democracy in this country. We have the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Who are we in this special and difficult moral case to say that we are above everyone else and that what we do must become law?
What would the great Tory leaders of the past have thought of such behaviour by this Conservative Government? If the Bill is eventually passed, thanks to the Parliament Acts, I shall bow my head in shame. Have we in this House become so craven that we are prepared to give way to a well-organised lobby and to special pleading? Have we no sense of honour left? If the Bill is passed, it will be a sad day for the laws of England.
I am one of the few in this debate who served in the forces throughout the second world war. I hope that I have no bitterness against our former enemies. I have often said that I greatly admired—and admire—the German army. Years ago, Lord Randolph Churchill described Mr. Gladstone as
an old man in a hurry".
Perhaps I may be allowed to say on this occasion, with regard to this extraordinary Bill, that the measure is being pressed on us by young men in a hurry. If the Bill becomes law, they will in time very much regret what they are doing.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is sometimes sad when people who seek only justice for all are told that they are part of a tradition that has gone and that they are
young men in a hurry".
I am glad that I am young and I do not think that I am in a hurry.

Mr. Rees: Relatively.

Mr. Bermingham: All things are relative.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am 65 and I am young.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has a problem.
What are we talking about in the Bill? We are talking, as was said earlier, about murdered children, and about men and women who committed crimes that none of us can bear or tolerate. By some quirk of law, they were never


brought to justice. Is it wrong for the House to say that we think that all citizens of the world are equal before the law? That is all we are saying. We are not saying anything novel.
My predecessor bar one as Member of Parliament for St. Helens was Lord Shawcross, who prosecuted at Nuremberg. He said recently that he thought that time had gone and that time had somehow forgiven and forgotten. That must be wrong. If I murder somebody today and, by a quirk of fate, avoid prosecution for 20, 30 or 40 years, have I committed any less of a crime after, say, 40 years? Have I somehow, by the passage of time, gained the right not to be prosecuted? We do not have a statute of limitations in this land. Why should we have a statute of limitations for war criminals? We should not, we must not, and I suspect that, after tonight, we will not.
As time goes by, perhaps education improves and we learn how to deal with the sins of the past. Perhaps we should always deal with the sins of the past, but why? In other lands, people can be prosecuted for war crimes committed in Europe. The Bill is too limited because it restricts prosecution to crimes committed in German-occupied territories from 1939 onwards. War crimes are being committed in the name of inhumanity all over the world, all the time—

Mr. Allason: There is a law to cover that.

Mr. Bermingham: Of course there is not. The hon. Gentleman should look at the legislation—

Mr. Allason: What about the 1956 and 1969 Acts?

Mr. Bermingham: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he wants to intervene, I shall certainly give way to him. By seeking to intervene from a sedentary position, he is perhaps showing the paucity of his cause.

Mr. Allason: Is it not the case that the Geneva Conventions Act 1956 and the Genocide Act 1969 make clear the international law and the law of this country on this issue? Is it not the case that the Bill tackles a small loophole in the jurisdiction, which it aims to close because it is exploited by war criminals?

Mr. Bermingham: If I remember correctly, the Geneva Conventions Act gained Royal Assent in 1957, not 1956—but it matters not.
The Bill seeks to plug the loophole for the period 1939–57. Is that wrong? Are we to pass the Billl simply because we wish to close the gap?

Mr. John Browne: Retrospectively.

Mr. Bermingham: Another Conservative Member intervenes from a sedentary position to say, "retrospectively". Murder is murder whether it was committed in 1940 or 1941. There is nothing about retrospective legislation in the Bill. We are not turning what was a legitimate act into an illegitimate act. Quite the contrary—we are saying that what was done in the period from 1939 onwards was illegitimate and illegal. It was murder—it is as blunt as that. If hon. Members say, "We shall use the argument of retrospection as a means of excusing the prosecution of killers", I ask them why there should be a rule for some people in the European continent which does not apply to other people in the European continent. Just because by a quirk of fate and legislation someone moves from, for example, the Ukraine or Latvia to the United

Kingdom, why should he or she escape prosecution when, if that person were to stay in the first country, he or she would face prosecution? That must be wrong.
It is also argued that, because another place argued so eloquently against the Bill, we who are elected by the people have no right to challenge that view. I thought that was what the civil war was all about, back in 1640. I thought that we had solved that problem and decided that the elected House has the right, on certain occasions, to say, "No, we reflect the will of the people, the will of the electorate, and our view must prevail."
The Parliament Acts have been used on only three occasions on major matters—and this is a major matter. If, by luck, someone has left the place in Europe where he or she committed a crime and has taken up residence here and therefore has not been prosecuted, we must say on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, "That is not good enough."
The tragedy is that we did not have the courage to introduce such legislation 20, 30 or 40 years ago to bring our law into line with the European continent. That is why I ask the House to support the Bill.
Since our previous debate on this matter, I have considered the arguments about identification with great care. As a practising lawyer—I declare that interest—I have always been worried about identification cases because there have been many miscarriages of justice as a result of misidentification. I listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier, but disagree fundamentally with him. Identification need not be simply a line-up in an identification parade. We have sophisticated techniques that could be used in this case. Provided that we have the safeguards which, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, are safeguards with which the English courts are well used to dealing—I concede that we do not always get it right—I do not foresee problems with identification.
That was the problem that worried me greatly last time. I have thought about it a great deal since, because it was always apparent that the Bill would return to this House and that this issue would not go away. I therefore asked myself a simple question. If I were a member of the investigating team, would I be satisfied that suitable safeguards could be built into the system to ensure that any identification, if it forms a major part of the case, could be safely relied upon? The provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 crossed my mind and I wondered whether they were enough in themselves.
However, there are records of what happened. There is record on film and there are photographs. There are hundreds of pieces of documentary evidence and there are forensic and other experts who can interpret the films and decide who the people were. I believe that we now have the scientific knowledge to help us with the problem of the aging process. After all, most of us go through it in one form or another as the years go by. I am no longer so worried, therefore, about the identification problem. If any trials involve identification, we must consider making available to the defence the same wide range of forensic skills and experts as are available to the prosecution. That is the one remaining area that causes me a niggling worry, but I believe that it can be overcome.
When people kill, they take the life of another. The millions who were killed did not ask to die. They are the victims. Is it not time that we in this House thought more


about the victims than about the aggressors? Have not the victims of the holocaust a right to justice no matter how much time has elapsed? Why should those who committed the crimes and who, by a quirk of law, were lucky enough to escape the justice that should have been due to their victims escape it still? Why should those victims continue to be denied their justice? After all, they gave their lives. Those whom we now seek to prosecute took those lives.

Mr. Rupert Allason: As a member of the all-party war crimes group, I attended the debate in the other House. I was pretty stunned by what I heard there. There seems to be a tendency in this House to assume some kind of monopoly of wisdom for some of their Lordships, especially Lord Goodman. From my experience, receiving letters which have threatened all kinds of things, Lord Goodman is just a large, big bully and I do not believe that he speaks for anybody and I do not suppose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is contrary to our conventions to criticise in that fashion members of the other place, who cannot answer back.

Mr. Allason: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling into question the integrity of a member of the legal profession.
When I listened to their Lordships, I noted that they pursued three particular red herrings on which I should like to take them to task. First, the essence of the Bill is a technical change in jurisdiction, rather than the criminal law—or specifically the criminal law relating to murder. When the people committed the offences, they were outside our jurisdiction. They have remained outside that jurisdiction through a loophole in the law. We do not seek to criminalise what they did, but merely to extend the jurisdiction. The unpalatable fact that their Lordships were not prepared to face was that the United Kingdom has become a bolthole for war criminals. Indeed, only one other place in the world offers the same measure of protection to these people and that is Damascus.

Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend's argument is not quite right. We are seeking to extend the jurisdiction. I believe that that is right and I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. But in this case we are seeking to extend the jurisdiction retrospectively. That is the crucial issue.

Mr. Allason: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment, I shall come to that point. It was one of the more bogus points raised in another place.
It is not a matter of reviving old memories. The individuals are known. There are no difficulties over identification. They know who they are and, of course, their names have already been published on Scottish Television. Those two issues are complete red herrings.
I now come to the business of retrospective legislation. I have rarely heard such utter rot from the other House. We constantly pass retrospective legislation. If anyone challenges that, I simply refer them to the Official Secrets Act 1989, in which we created a new offence. Anyone who has ever served in the security and intelligence services at any time has suddenly been drawn into a brand new Act. They did not sign anything relating to the Act. They may

have served long before the last world war. The creation of that offence was entirely a retrospective exercise. That the Bill is retrospective does not automatically mean that it is bad. In this case, retrospectively to extend the jurisdiction of the House seems perfectly satisfactory.
The third issue that their Lordships appeared to ignore was the whole business of the time limit. It was suggested that, because the events happened an awful long time ago, somehow those responsible should be excused. I am prepared to listen to that line of argument, but there is one logical question to be asked. If one gets away with a murder, at what stage can one stop looking over one's shoulder wondering whether one is going to be arrested? Is it 10, 20 or 40 years? That logical question must be asked of their Lordships. They were not prepared to answer it in the debate. All that they said was that it was an awfully long time ago and it was a great shame to dredge it all up again.
Mention was made of defendants being feeble and senile. Of course, that is not the point. The legislation will allow our legal system to address a particular problem presented by individuals who have sought asylum in this country. We shall not automatically prosecute such individuals. If they are not in any condition to stand trial, of course the judge will sling the case out immediately.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not in the Chamber. He raised several issues which, again, were red herrings that must be addressed. He wondered why these people had come to this country. More to the point, he said that the British authorities were aware of the background of those individuals when they entered the country. That is a grave allegation. I simply do not believe that that is the case. But if my right hon. Friend persists in making that allegation, there is no clearer argument for ending the secrecy that surrounds all the cases.
I hark back to one of the first questions that I asked in the House. I asked whether it was possible to see the British files—admittedly in Foreign Office archives—relating to Klaus Barbie. I was told that because the British Government had employed Klaus Barbie in an intelligence capacity after the war, the information was too terribly secret to be revealed. What could be more preposterous?
I hope that the House will support the Bill. Moreover, if, sadly, the Bill is rejected, I urge the authorities and Sir Thomas Hetherington to publish part two of the report to demonstrate to all hon. Members exactly how overwhelming is the weight of evidence against these individuals. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The point that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has just made about the information available in part two of the Chalmers-Hetherington report is extremely important. I shall return to it later, if only to argue that, at present, the information is in the hands of the Home Office. Only the Home Secretary and his closest advisers have seen it. I believe that, if the Bill is not passed, that information will not remain secret. Several people who supplied it will make sure that it is made known. That is a factor which we should take into account because it has greatly influenced successive Home Secretaries who have read the report. As is said in the report, the information is horrific. I have


always felt that that is what influenced the Government and what may well have influenced the new Prime Minister, who previously voted against the Bill.
I support the Bill as chairman of the all-party war crimes committee and for myself. Over the weekend, I re-read our debates in the House over the past two years and the White Paper by Hetherington and Chalmers. I have read the papers that were prepared for the use of the war crimes committee, some of them by eminent lawyers explaining—with the aid of the Home Office, I am glad to say, which certainly did not approach our endeavours secretively—why the other approaches, of extradition or altering citizenship, were not the correct avenues to pursue. I must say that the citizenship avenue attracted me at the beginning.
It is good training and concentrates the mind to read the explanatory and financial memorandum, which encapsulates the purpose of the Bill. It says that clause 1 provides that:
proceedings for murder and manslaughter (or culpable homicide) may be brought against persons who are British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands in respect of actions committed in violation of the laws and customs of war in Germany or German-occupied territory between I September 1939 and 5 June 1945.
I have had letters asking why Japanese and Russian war crimes have not been included. It is because the Home Office, in its wisdom, with the information available to it, said that it did not know of any Russians or Japanese people who came here to live. Large numbers of people came here from eastern Europe as displaced persons, as is set out in the Hetherington-Chalmers report. The Bill was spawned out of that report.
Referring to a draft convention to which the United Kingdom might have become a signatory and quoting Home Office papers in 1944, the report stated:
The United Kingdom need not sign this convention because there is little or no likelihood of 'War Criminals' or `Quislings' escaping to this country since for no doubt many years after the war all persons coming here from abroad will require a visa".
In 1944, in its wisdom, the Home Office thought that there was "little or no likelihood" of people with war crime backgrounds coming from mid-Europe to this country, so there was no need to sign the convention. The Home Office was wrong.
For economic reasons, because of work in the textile industry in the north or in the coal mines in south Wales, large numbers of people were brought to the United Kingdom. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to read page 42 of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, 'which states:
the existing screening arrangements … were as good as could be devised".
A large number of people came to this country for economic reasons. Some had been involved in the commission of war crimes in mid and central Europe. That is the genesis of the Bill.
I am as worried as anyone about the practicalities of any trials. Although I was only marginally involved in the Birmingham case, I was heavily involved in the Guildford case. I am glad that the Government have said that a royal commission will investigate the criminal justice system. It is necessary to investigate the police and forensic evidence. I am sure that the Home Secretary will deal with those matters in the short term, but the problem associated with the Court of Appeal will not be dealt with overnight. The more I become involved arid the more I prepare evidence

for the royal commission—which I was preparing for the May investigation—the more I realise that this is not an easy matter. There are problems in terms of the practicalities of the court.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, in a way that I could not, to the way in which courts deal with jurors and witnesses and identification. I am glad that lawyers in another place said that they were concerned about fair trials, but I wish that there had been equal concern about fair trials for those involved in the Guildford case, for example. I hope that there will be a fair trial for anyone who is dealt with under the Bill.
It is 17 years since the Birmingham case was first brought up. It may be another 20 years before those who committed those horrors in 1974 are caught. Should we therefore argue that, as nearly 40 years have passed since a crime was committed, it should be forgotten?

Mr. Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, in relation to much of what he said about the Birmingham and Guildford cases, that what happens depends on the quality of the investigators?

Mr. Rees: I agree. That was to be my next point. Once the Bill is passed, investigation will determine the nature of a trial. I have some sympathy with those members of the judiciary who say that they take what comes in front of them. Investigation is very important.
My experience partly explains why I became involved in the war crimes issue. I saw the evidence of war crimes in Lyons in France, the town where Barbie operated, but I do not want to develop that point. I have never forgotten what I saw. Those were not crimes committed in the heat of battle. I have often argued with members of my family, who have now grown up, about how to distinguish between Dresden, the cab-rank operations in which I was involved and the events on the Basra road. When I took my children to France, I saw acre upon acre of graves of the millions of German, French, British and Irish people who died in the first world war—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: And Scots.

Mr. Rees: And Scots. I am not making a silly point. There were large numbers of people from all parts of Europe. The whole thing is an obscenity. The real war crimes involve those who committed the crimes in the cool light of day. Some of the stories told in the Hetherington report reflect the horrifying events.
As a young man, I was astonished to find that the young soldiers who were taken prisoner in the south of France were, we were told, Russians—they were Ukrainians. I do not know whether Germans or Ukrainians committed the crimes in Lyons. The same things happened in Yugoslavia and in Austria-Hungary. Thousands of people poured in. We now read that they were enthusiastically on the side of the Germans. That is as may be—I am not concerned with that after all this time.
What is a war crime? In much of the debate, we have gone beyond the Bill. The Hetherington report states:
It is … appropriate to consider … the terms 'war crime' and 'war criminal' … Most of what are termed 'war crimes' in the Second World War were committed far from the front


line and have little to do with the actual waging of war. Most of these crimes would be more appropriately termed crimes of occupation".
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who served with the Fleet Air Arm during the war, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) expressed a view which I understood. Those who have seen war realise how horrific it is and pull back from considering war crimes. I do not pull back from war crimes but am concerned with the horrors that took place in mid-Europe in the cool of the day—not the heat of battle—when thousands of people were done to death for anti-socialism.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That is all right.

Mr. Rees: I am proud to be a socialist. This is not something to be funny about. Good socialists were done to death by communists in central Europe. They had stood up for their cause throughout the war. It is interesting to note who supported the communists when the war was over—many were slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. They had a home in the communist party. There is a certain circularity in this matter, fascism and communism becoming very much the same. A socialist understands that.
"War crime" is defined in the Hetherington report. What did Governments do in the 1940s? I referred to the Home Office statement in 1944, that quislings and people who committed war crimes would not come to the United Kingdom, but the Home Office was wrong. Many of us get things wrong because we do not comprehend what will happen. The Hetherington report stated:
War criminals were not given an assurance that they would not be prosecuted here, and we see nothing in the policy or practice of successive British Governments that would prevent the present Government taking whatever action it considers suitable.
Similarly, on retrospection, the report stated that
enactment of legislation in this country to allow the prosecution of 'war crimes' in British courts would not be retrospective: it would merely empower British courts to utilise a jurisdiction already available to them under international law since before 1939, over crimes which had been internationally recognised as such since 1939 by nations including both the United Kingdom and Germany.
The report adds that that argument is not made in respect of offences of genocide, which would be retrospective, and which were not attended to until the 1957 legislation.
I comprehend the need for legislation as a matter of principle. The principle involved was that cited earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The Bill really exists to plug a defect in our nationality laws. If I, who was British born, had committed such a crime, I would be brought to trial, but the man or woman living next door to me who did not tell the truth when they were made British citizens or when they completed the forms to enter this country as displaced persons would not be prosecuted.

Ms. Short: As my right hon. Friend knows, if someone lies for the purpose of acquiring British citizenship, they can subsequently be deprived of it. It is not true to say that the Bill provides the only remedy against a liar who wrongly secured British citizenship.

Mr. Rees: No, but I said earlier, when my hon. Friend was temporarily absent for a spot of dinner—understandably, because she has been present in the Chamber all evening—that that point had been made in the Select Committee and was put to the Home Office. It is not just a matter of depriving a person of his British citizenship. It is not—as I know, as a former Home Secretary—just a matter of making an executive decision, because the case will end up in the courts. My hon. Friend may be concerned about The Sun splashing a particular case over its first and second pages. It would do the same if British citizenship was rescinded, because the case could end up in the courts. There is no way of avoiding court action.

Ms. Short: But it is not the only remedy.

Mr. Rees: No, it is not the only remedy. That point is made in the Hetherington report, as it was in the report published by the appropriate Home Office department some time ago.

Mr. John Browne: The right hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent argument for plugging the gap, with which most right hon. and hon. Members would agree. The question is whether that gap should be plugged retrospectively. It may be convenient and popular to take that action, but would it be just?

Mr. Rees: I quoted earlier the advice offered by Hetherington and Chalmers. One is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and the other held a similar appointment in Scotland, as Crown Agent. They argued that it is not a case of retrospection in relation to the crime itself, but to the jurisdiction.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inception of the idea embodied in the Bill was a merciful alternative to extradition?

Mr. Rees: Replying earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I said that we had considered the option relating to citizenship, which appealed to me. I wish that we could get around the problem of citizenship in this country, but we are haunted by nationality and British subject status, going back to the days of a British empire on which the sun never set. As to extradition, one thinks of the days to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred, when we were both students. I wonder whether he sat in the Strangers' Gallery when the House debated a famous extradition case involving a Pole, which featured in all the newspapers. Extradition was found to be not as easy as all that.

Mr. Stanbrook: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of the Batory case.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Extradition does not provide an easy solution either. The Government came down on this side—

Mr. Archer: The objection came from them.

Mr. Rees: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the objection came from "them". I take his words in the way that he put them.
Plugging the gap of citizenship and of nationality is of the greatest importance. I am old enough to recall that, even in the first year or two of the second world war, many people on the right ignored the reality of Hitler. It was a


long time before the reality of the concentration camps was accepted. Equally, after the war, many on the left ignored the reality of Soviet Russia. We are back to the circularity that I mentioned earlier—the way in which intelligent men and women can close their eyes and ears to the reality of the world, which is extremely surprising.

Sir Alan Glyn: I recall that a command paper published in 1939 set out all the atrocities that had been committed. I obtained a copy from the Library.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right. I had other things on my mind at the time, but I imagine that many people chose to ignore those facts. Ignoring reality is not a function of academic attainment either.
There is no reason why those who live here as citizens or residents should be treated any differently from the rest of us. I keep saying that I have been a Member of the House for a long time, but it is germane. I have never quite faced up to being a politician, because politicians are great ones for shouting and attracting the attention of the national media when something happens to get coverage of what they intend to do. Not long ago, right hon. and hon. Members were denouncing the way in which RAF pilots were being treated as prisoners of war and saying what they intended to do about it. I will tell the House what will be done about it—nothing. It was good stuff at the time.
I mentioned that because I have been in correspondence with Wing Commander Stapleton as a result of a letter that he wrote to The Times. He pointed out that, in. June 1944, following the Gestapo murders of 50 allied air crew officers, the Foreign Minister, Anthony Eden, assured Parliament that the Government were firmly resolved
that these foul criminals shall be tracked down to the last man wherever they may take refuge. When the war is over they will be brought to exemplary justice."—[Official Report, 23 June 1944; Vol. 401, c. 481.]
What was done? They were forgotten. It is easy to forget, but I do not want to forget those who came here to live as British citizens. If they had gone to another country, it would be someone else's responsibility, but as they came here to reside, they are our responsibility.
I commend the Bill to the House, on the basis of both parts of the Hetherington and Chalmers report. I do not believe that the second part will go away. It has affected successive Home Secretaries, and in my view it affected the Prime Minister and led to his change of mind. If the Bill does not die a natural death, I do not believe that many people will be touched by it—and I do not want them to go to prison, to be hanged, or locked up. They will be old men of my age, and older. I want them to face the light of day. In some small way, that will show others that there is no hiding place for those who commit the kind of war crimes that have been listed by Hetherington and Chalmers. If we do not take that action, someone else will, because although that information is privy to the Government—as long as they want to keep it—others provided it, and it will be provided. I would rather that the press dealt with a trial, instead of the untested evidence in part two of the Hetherington-Chalmers report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see that five hon. Members seek to catch my eye and there are 40 minutes left for debate. I think that the arithmetic will be obvious.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I respond with care to what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has just said, and let me remind him that two of those at Nuremberg were executed because they signed the order for the airmen in question.
Let me also remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the four international judges went out they decided to get the easy cases out first. They said that von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht and Fritsche were guilty, but eventually those three were acquitted. So let us not be too pompous about the certainty of justice in the wake of Birmingham and Guildford.
As a Scots lawyer, what I find most objectionable about the Hetherington-Chalmers report is not that it is retrospective or that it alters the extraditional concepts of the law, but that it alters the evidential concept of the law—the idea that one can be convicted on the hearsay evidence of someone who is dead, when that evidence is not capable of any form of investigation.
My goodness, if we were not able to get a conviction right 17 years ago, are we likely to get it right on hearsay evidence when the crime happened 50 years ago? I find the concept contrary to the theory of justice upon which the law of Scotland is formed, if not the law of England. Uncorroborated hearsay from the dead seems to me to be a strange basis for attempting to try people for crimes, however frightful they were.
Let us not forget that it took this Government to admit that it was the Russians who murdered the Polish officer corps at Katyn. It was this Government who allowed the memorial to be built. It was blown up by Russian agents and then recreated.
I have a great friend called Zoe Polanska-Palmer, who was taken from Russia, at the age of 12, to Auschwitz. She was the principal object of experiments by Dr. Mengele. She was moved to the pleasures of Dachau by a Polish officer. During an air raid she escaped and walked—speaking only Russian—from Dachau over the Alps and was hidden by the partisans. Then she was taken to Klagenfurt and, on the orders of Sir Toby Low, she was loaded at bayonet-point, to be taken back and shot. Because she was only a young girl and she was injured, a British officer pushed her off the lorry and that is why she is still alive, in Tayport in Scotland.
I do not have any sentimentality when it comes to the wrongness or the brutality of those who committed these crimes, but I believe that if we attempt to get these old jellyfish into court now, they would either be wrongly or pointlessly convicted.
Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Russians, Czechoslovakians and Poles—how many thousand war crimes did they each commit? Let us bury the past.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I can be brief because the contributions against the Bill that we have heard today, especially in the earlier part of the debate, have been first class and extremely persuasive. There is no doubt whatsoever that the balance of the argument is now substantially against the Bill.
Although I have been against the principle of retrospective legislation—legislation bent for the purpose of establishing cases against alleged war criminals—from


the very beginning, in view of the speeches that we have heard against the Bill, it is not necessary for me to speak at length.
One of the best contributions was that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) because he demonstrated conclusively to anyone who had not already made up his mind about the Bill—

Ms. Short: Or hers.

Mr. Stanbrook: Yes, or had not made up her mind. He showed that it would be wrong to proceed with it. It is certainly a pity for his argument and for his reputation that he rested his opposition to the Bill upon a matter of such little merit, namely, that it is desirable to declare that we are against the holocaust. Of course we are against the holocaust, but that is not part of the argument.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook put the Home Secretary on the spot by asking whether there will be prosecutions under the Bill if we pass it. The Home Secretary did not answer in a satisfactory manner, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would not allow me to intervene to point that out. The argument, which ought to be pressed home, is that unless the Bill is passed, the people concerned—three elderly individuals who now live in this country—cannot be prosecuted. The Bill must be passed to enable that. Only one Law Officer can decide that they will not then be prosecuted.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Two.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend is right—two. Another Law Officer is responsible for Scottish jurisdiction. It is said that at least one of the three lives in Scotland.
However, the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country has to decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest. That cannot be laid down in the Bill. It is not in the Bill. The Bill does not contradict the existing constitution of this country—or not as far as England and Wales are concerned.
The Attorney-General must decided ultimately whether any case should go forward for prosecution and whether to prosecute it would be in the public interest.
I thought it rather daring of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General not only to be present for the earlier speeches, but to intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to suggest that the Attorney-General could not possibly authorise a trial that became a show trial. That must be one of the strongest arguments against the Bill. If it is passed, the chances of a show trial, or show trials, for the three old men is very great.
I felt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was skating on thin ice when he posed that question. Ultimately—whatever happens to the Bill—if some jurisdiction is given to the British criminal courts to try the people concerned, he will still have to decide whether, in the light of the evidence and every other consideration, it is in the public interest to pursue the matter. He should keep that judgment clear and separate in his mind. I have no doubt that he will do so, but it would be better if he expressed no opinion until the time came.
There are good reasons why prosecutions are not in the public interest. Let me list three of them. The first lies in

the concept of retrospection—for, no matter what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the proponents of the Bill may say, this is retrospective criminal legislation. The Minister says that it is not criminal legislation; that, while it may be retrospective, it extends only to jurisdiction. This is the first time that I have heard anyone say that a change in the jurisdiction of a criminal court is not part of the criminal law. Of course it is—especially, and more definitively, because in this instance the jurisdiction will be changed in a particular way, in relation to particular events, at a particular time and in a particular place. That is very selective, and cannot possibly escape the label of retrospective criminal legislation.
Many arguments have been advanced against treating the Bill as retrospective legislation; we have heard some tonight. Let us not forget, however, why we do not like retrospective legislation. Not only would it be unfair to charge someone with an offence when no such offence existed at the time of its commission; it would also be unfair if, because of what had passed since the commission of the offence, it was impracticable or, indeed, almost impossible to initiate a prosecution. Do not let us become involved in arguments about whether we knew in 1948 that certain people had come to this country whom we knew to be guilty of certain offences and whether that was deliberate, a question raised rather unworthily by some hon. Members in regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Such arguments are irrelevant.
To change the law after 50 years is to say to the individual concerned, "No matter that you kept no records, no documents and no memories of the events of 50 years ago. No matter that you have not kept in touch with friends who could possibly help you to defend yourself. No matter that you did not keep alibi evidence. You simply did not know that you would be prosecuted." It is fundamentally unfair, 50 years on, to bring a charge and to ask the accused to defend himself against the weight of a Government machine that has spent half a million pounds, engaged the services of 20 or 30 police officers and toured eastern Europe for 18 months trying to obtain the evidence that, according to part two of the report, will be damning enough to justify the legislation.
Retrospection is the offence embodied in the Bill—an offence that we should not contemplate, because, in view of the time lapse, it is doubly unfair. If we cannot give these people a fair trial, we cannot say that we are exercising British justice, for a fair trial is fundamental to all British justice.
My second point has already been made—although with less force—by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). For the purposes of the Bill, the law has been changed in the past 12 months to enable evidence to be admitted in court that is derived from sources who are deceased, or, for some other reason, unable to appear as witnesses to give honourable testimony. We should bear in mind that 50 years have passed. Written statements from witnesses can be used, regardless of how they came to be made—up to 50 years ago—and regardless of the possibility that they are forgeries.

Ms. Short: The Hetherington report even suggests that statements from people who are now dead can be used, whatever the conditions in which they were made.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is indeed one of the report's recommendations. The report has proved very useful, in that it gave us the sources that we needed; but, when discussing the legal difficulties, it effectively told us, "The way in which to bring a case is to bend, or change, the law." The ultimate consequence is a Bill like this, which changes the jurisdiction of the courts. That is an inherent injustice. If the Bill is enacted and trials follow, three people will be arraigned—three known people: the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has made sure that the newspapers, and everyone else, know their names and where they live. Simon Wiesenthal's own people have paraded up and down outside the House of one of the prospective defendants, accusing him of being guilty.
If the Bill is passed, the law will be directed solely towards the object of bringing three people to court on evidence that has been changed and adjusted for that specific purpose. As a practising barrister of some 30 years' standing, I would have voted against the Bill on that ground alone. There is, however, another argument—the argument that the people concerned should be entitled to obtain witnesses and evidence in their defence. It has been pointed out that legal aid is available to them, but those of us who have used legal aid in such circumstances, or have tried to, will laugh at that. It is difficult enough to obtain a witness from overseas; to obtain a witness who can testify to events of 50 years ago is another matter, and the resources of the legal aid fund will not rise to such a challenge. The argument is spurious: it would riot be practically possible for any of the accused to defend themselves. In the end they will have to answer these charges, unsupported by all the paraphernalia that applies to prosecutions and without all the resources that are available to the prosecuting authorities.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we intend to legislate for an injustice. It is no use those who support the Bill saying that justice can be done. Due to the way that it has been contrived, it will be impossible for the defence to establish credentials and evidence of such a nature as to enable it to make its case.
The question of identification was referred to by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Can one imagine the difficulties of identification after 50 years? One case was in 1941, 50 years ago. Identification ought to depend not on whether the individual was there but on whether he committed the crime. He may well be identified as having been present, but British justice ought to require that it is proved that he was the criminal, not a bystander, with German guns in view and German soldiers standing around.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South suggested that modern techniques—DNA testing, no doubt, and all the other wonderful techniques that are now available—are used to identify defendants as criminals. However, they could not be used in Lithuania in 1941, under wartime conditions.
Please let us not legislate for an injustice. We cannot say that it is possible for British justice to be applied now to what happened then: It is no use talking about what happened in this country years ago but has been discovered only now. Trials could take place at any time in this country under our jurisdiction. The evidence would be available in a civilised country where law and order is, happily, the normal rule. Documentary evidence would have been preserved. We are not, however, talking about such a case; we are talking about doing an injustice to

people who at the moment are living under the British system of justice. Justice will not be obtained if we bend the law in the way that the Bill requires us to do. Therefore, I call upon the House to vote against it.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was very well constructed, valuable and helpful. I pay tribute to him for what he said against the Bill and recognise his knowledge of the issue. However, I believe that the Bill ought to be supported. Therefore, I intend to put before him a different point of view—though briefly, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
Perhaps each generation sees the war that it experienced as the war—the benchmark of evil, the hallmark of horror, the epitome of brave deeds and thus its war criminals as unique in the evil that they committed. The Bill addresses only the second world war and the criminals that it spawned.
Alas, there is no end to the cruelty of mankind. Man's inhumanity to man continues ceaselessly and with a ferocity that is heightened and deepened by today's fiendish inventions, Cambodia's genocide—that mountain of skulls—Iraq's barbarism—what we read of the abominable cruelty to Kuwaitis—and the impassive horror of China's army in Tiananmen square, with the blood of students flowing over the stones. We do not attempt to deal with those killers tonight, nor do we plan to do so in the future. Why, then, this Bill, when the voices of all those who have been treated cruelly, or who have been tortured, maimed or killed, echo throughout the centuries? It is because we, as a Christian nation, played our part in the anti-Semitic European movement over the centuries. Today, as a multi-faith society, rooted and grounded in a more tolerant Christianity, we have a small chance to make reparation. We can rebalance the scales. Anti-Semitism is not dead. The Jews are persecuted always. In England and Scotland in the 12th century, we piled Jews into chimneys and lit the fires beneath them. In the 1940s, those chimneys were recreated in Auschwitz, and with the freeing of Poland we now have the opportunity to see them.
That shows the uniqueness of the Bill; anti-Semitism is the key. As a Christian, I have some responsibility to wipe out that evil.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: If my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will forgive me, I shall not follow the sentiments that she expressed.
Three speeches reflect the dilemma in which I find myself in confronting this issue. One speech stood out: would that I had the eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). The three speeches were made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
We all agree about the enormity of the crimes that were committed. I do not intend to impugn any hon. Member


who expressed hatred and abhorrence about those crimes, but it takes little imagination to know the evil that was perpetrated.
The hon. Member for Ladywood expressed the dilemma truly in wanting to hit out and to express the rage and concern of humanity by saying that those crimes are unacceptable.
Why should not we pass the Bill? The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook addressed that issue powerfully—so powerfully that he reached the conclusion that, should anybody be mistaken about the fact that he regarded these crimes as an anathema, he was going to set aside the most formidable list of reservations that I have heard about the Bill in order, for declaratory purposes, to show that he could not be associated with a scintilla of doubt about his distaste and hatred for the activities that took place almost half a century ago.
I shall not question the conclusion that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook reached from the evidence that he adduced. That evidence was well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who, in a detailed, clinical, detached but cerebral manner, reminded us of the principles of our legal system.
I sympathise with all three expressions of opinion. I do not condone the activities that took place 45 or 50 years ago—no hon. Member would wish to be associated with them—but I must ask myself, not as a lawyer but as a human being, whether I honestly believe that we shall effect justice according to the terms of our courts. I doubt whether we shall do so and on that basis, mindful of my abhorrence of the acts that took place, I cannot support the Bill.

Mr. John Browne: I support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the eloquent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). As they put the case extremely well, I shall make only one fundamental point about retrospection. Most hon. Members, if not all, would agree that war crimes are horrific and should be punished.
Indeed, I would go further than many hon. Members, because I support capital punishment. Although the punishment may be severe—

Ms. Short: This is a very funny time at which to be talking about supporting capital punishment. If ever two groups of criminals would have been hanged, it is the six men convicted of the Birmingham bombings and the men convicted of the Guildford bombings. Years later, we know that they were wrongfully convicted. In view of that fact—quite apart from all the other arguments—how does the hon. Gentleman now dare to stand up and say that he supports capital punishment?

Mr. Browne: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that it is a funny time. It is an important time, and the hon. Lady has made my point clearly. The more severe the punishment—capital punishment even—the more we must strive for justice. There can be no justification for supporting capital punishment if trials admit of the

possibility of injustice. That is my key point in this case, and I am glad that the hon. Lady said that. However severe the punishment, it must be just and not just convenient. In this case, it may be popular. It may be politically convenient. But it must also be fundamentally just.
It is for basic justice that we and our forefathers have fought over centuries.
A key element of our principles of justice is the onus of proof. The accused is innocent until proved guilty. At the weekend, I heard a well-meaning member of my own party saying on television, "Oh, but the Guildford and Birmingham men had not been proved innocent." Surely they had to be proved guilty. That is the fundamental point. We in the House have already bent the rule of the onus of proof in respect of some of our anti-drugs legislation. I do not support that principle because it leads to a slippery slope.
My second point relates to the right to cross-examination.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Before we get lost in the idea that the debate is about the holocaust, let us not forget that 60 million gentiles died in the last war.

Mr. Browne: I am sure that we shall remember that.
My second point relates to the right to cross-examine witnesses, which is fundamental to natural justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made it clear that, in this case, the rules have been bent to suit this Bill.
The last of my three basic points concerns knowledge of the law, which is assumed in our system of justice.
I support the argument of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who made an eloquent speech in favour of plugging the gap. I agree with him that the gap should be plugged and that its very existence is abhorrent. However, attractive as it may be, it should not be done retrospectively.
I believe that the Bill would lead to show trials. Doubtless, they would be very popular and highly convenient politically. But they would be a travesty of justice.
The Bill was debated in the other place and their Lordships, many of whom are extremely well versed in the law, voted against it. Their Lordships do not have party constituencies and were able to speak and vote relatively unaffected by considerations of public popularity and political convenience. They defeated the Bill by a large margin—by 273 to 60. That may have been a political nuisance but it was right because it was just.
I believe that the Bill represents retrospective legislation which would be intrinsically unjust, and I urge the House to vote it down.

Mr. Alistair Darling: This has been an extremely thoughtful debate—on both sides of the argument. It is interesting to note that several hon. Members appear to have changed their minds since we last debated the matter. It will be extremely interesting to see not only the outcome of tonight's vote but the number of hon. Members who, for whatever reason, choose not to vote. It is to be a free vote, and there will be no rancour if hon. Members choose to go different ways when we divide.
Before I deal with the substance of the argument, I should like to refer to one matter raised by the hon.


Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who is not in his place at the moment. The hon. Gentleman said that, if the Bill fails to be given its Second Reading tonight, there will be those who will publish the information contained in the second part of the Hetherington-Chalmers report. That is a dangerous and threatening statement. If there are to be trials, they should be conducted in a court room and not in newspapers or on the streets. We do not want witch hunts. The Minister must make it clear when he replies that the report will not be published under any circumstances unless a trial was to proceed.

Mr. John Patten: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I agree entirely that it would be wrong for the Government at any stage to publish that information? Does he also recognise that to do so would be deeply prejudicial to those who might in future find themselves accused of a crime and also to the many people whose names were brought forward for the investigation, were examined and found to be totally innocent and were exonerated? If that were to happen, it would be deeply prejudicial.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister of State and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I hope that those who follow our proceedings and those who might have access to information that might be highly damaging to individuals will take note of what has been said.
The principle underlying the Bill remains correct. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I have reservations about how it would work in practice. I did not intervene when hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, said that my right hon. Friend had rested his entire case on the need to make a declaratory statement against those people who might have perpetrated such horrific crimes. He did not peril his case simply on that statement, because it would have been wrong to do that. Like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook believes that the principle underlying the Bill is correct.
It is wrong that British courts have no jurisdiction over crimes of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide committed abroad by people who were not British subjects at the time but who have now become so. That problem has not arisen since 1957 and British courts now have such jurisdiction. However, it is wrong that a person accused of such crimes can escape prosecution while another person who was a British subject at the time cannot do so. That is especially important when we consider the nature of those crimes.

Ms. Short: Under the Geneva convention that was incorporated into British law around 1956 and under the Genocide Act 1969 to which my hon. Friend has referred, we have powers, but we have never prosecuted in relation to the killing of Kurds or other awful war crimes. This debate is not simply about powers; it involves war crimes in recent history as well as distant history. Does that not trouble my hon. Friend?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. Since 1957—and since 1969 when the legislation was considerably widened—British courts have had jurisdiction to hear the case of an individual accused of such crimes who is resident within any of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
Many crimes have gone unprosecuted and will continue to go unprosecuted and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) identified some of them. If someone is living in this country against whom charges can be made, it is wrong to say that nothing should be done simply because there are others elsewhere in the same position or perhaps in a far worse position. I accept that the people who are likely to come before our courts may feel aggrieved because others may be responsible for far worse crimes. However, it does not seem to be any more right to say that we cannot prosecute anyone for any crime on the ground that there may be someone somewhere else who is guilty of a worse crime. That argument does not stand up.
While I have no doubt about the principle of the Bill, I have every doubt about the implementation of its provisions. Before I consider the provisions, I want to refer to retrospection, which particularly taxed members of the other place in their debates on the matter last year.
Of course the legislation is retrospective in the strict sense. We should not be here tonight if it were not. However, it seems that there is an important point: the Bill seeks to give British courts retrospective jurisdiction. It does not seek to create a new crime. It would be wrong to do that. As such atrocities have probably always been criminal and since the Hague convention of 1907 they have certainly been criminal, we are not establishing a new crime; we are merely making it possible to prosecute those individuals in one or other of the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Surely it would be a new crime if a Lithuanian were to kill a Russian in Germany, and surely it would be new if that person were to be tried in Scotland. I have never heard of such a thing.

Mr. Darling: The crime is the act of killing. The subsequent charging of someone is no part of the crime. In Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, it has always been a crime to kill someone. The purpose of this Bill is to enable a court in England or Scotland to hear the case and, if it is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence, to convict. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is misconceived.
On the question of retrospection, it is important to bear in mind the fact that in 1950 the European convention on human rights anticipated that someone might be prosecuted for an act even though, at the time of the offence, there was no jurisdiction to hear the case.
When the other place declined to give the previous Bill a Second Reading, it was said that that decision was controversial. Indeed, the Home Secretary made the point that the other place had overruled the elected Chamber. I accept that entirely. There is some force in the argument that, in the event of a conflict between the two Chambers, the will of the House of Commons must prevail. Indeed, it would be far better if the second Chamber were elected. In that case, its revising and delaying role would be fully accepted as part of the democratic process. Thus, that element of such a controversy would be removed.
In answer to a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), I should make the point that legal arguments were not the only ones to be employed in another place. The Members of the other place who are lawyers are quite capable of raising points that are entirely political. Indeed, they do


just that. As Parliament is currently constituted, they are entitled to express their views. We should be in some danger were we to believe that everything that lawyers say must be right. In saying so, I speak as a lawyer.
Let me say something about my doubts. It seems to me that the fundamental duty of any court is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. That is a matter which has troubled many hon. and right hon. Members during the debate today. Before deciding to charge an individual, the Crown must give serious consideration to the weight and quality of the evidence. Once a person is charged, the die is cast. There will be publicity, and set in train will be certain events that would be difficult to undo. If there is a doubt, the Crown should not proceed.
I lay some emphasis on the role of the Crown, as it seems to me that it is a strength of the Scottish system, and now of the English system, that the Crown is given a considerable degree of judgment. It is important that the Crown should evaluate the evidence that it is prepared to lead—the quality of the evidence that the court is likely to hear—before deciding that prosecution is justified. Indeed, one of my reasons for supporting the Bill is that it will enable the Crown to make that judgment—to weigh the quality of evidence against any individual, and decide whether prosecution is justified. Of course, the prosecutor will still have a duty to have regard to the public interest. If the Crown's view is that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute an individual, nothing in this Bill will take away from that.
Reference has been made to the possibility of show trials. It would be wrong to characterise any trial in this country as a show trial as we understand that term. Not even in our wildest moments would we accuse the present Government, or a Government formed by my party, of being so crass as to stage a show trial for political purposes. The media, especially in England and Wales, have quite wide latitude in the way they report matters, both before and during a trial. We must be very careful that, before the Crown decides to proceed, it is satisfied that it has a case that it can prosecute to a successful conclusion. No proceedings should be started on the basis of the mere chance of success, or in the belief that, once this Bill becomes a statute, we must be seen to be doing something about the problem. That would be quite wrong.
The Crown will have a number of substantial difficulties. The first, which was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), is delay. Delay in itself is not a bar of trial, but it presents formidable difficulties. It is not enough to stop the prosecution in its tracks, but none the less the Crown will have to have regard to the fact that nearly 50 years have elapsed since the crimes were allegedly committed. I strongly believe that the fact that a crime took place some years ago should never be a reason for not prosecuting. We do not have a statute of limitations, and nor should we have one. In fact, within our recent memory is a case in which the body of a baby was found in an individual's back garden and it was found that the baby had died in the 1960s or late 1950s. No one ever argued that that individual should not have been prosecuted. As it happened, if I recollect correctly, he was subsequently convicted. I understand that delay may be a ground for

stopping a trial in England, but I am less certain of the position in Scotland. The position in Scotland was referred to in the other place.
Connected with delay is consideration of the quality of evidence. It has been said that old men never forget. I accept that, but I cannot believe that old men, or even young men for that matter, always remember things exactly as they happened. Anyone who has been in a court room must be aware of the difficulties that arise even after a short period. In Scotland, people in custody are brought to trial within three months, yet it is quite common for a witness not to remember what he saw, despite being quite certain about it until he went into the witness box and was cross-examined. How much worse would the position be after 50 years? Indeed, a witness may remember an event that sticks in his mind—perhaps the killing of an individual—but will he remember the circumstantial evidence and the various bits of evidence that fit into the crucial jigsaw?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Darling: Once more, out of deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman from the same Bar as myself, I shall give way.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am anxious to know whether, when it comes to evidence, the law of England is to be raised to the qualifications of the law of Scotland, or whether the law of Scotland is to be lowered to the laxity of the law of England.

Mr. Darling: I was about to refer to that very point. There is one difficulty that the Government must address, and that is the problem that they face with different laws on corroboration. It is ironic that the Home Secretary should announce a royal commission last Friday—I hope that it will address the desirability of corroboration being part and parcel of English criminal law—yet trials may take place under this legislation before the royal commission reports and certainly, I suspect, before anything is done about its findings. It will be ironic that someone accused of a war crime and prosecuted in Scotland will be entitled to various protections that he would simply not have in England. For example, the evidence that is laid against him will have to be corroborated. It will not be possible in Scotland to have evidence delivered by video.
In Scotland, identification of the accused is vital. The Crown cannot proceed without it. In England the system is different because there is no dock identification; instead identification is done by a different system that may have many advantages, but I suspect that in this case an accused would rather be brought to trial in Scotland, where it will be necessary for witnesses to appear in the witness box and to point the finger at the accused and say, "That is the man whom I saw do those things 50 years ago."
I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know whether the Government will try to resurrect the attempt to introduce video evidence in Scotland. The Minister will recall that, last year in the debacle on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, that was one of the provisions that were lost, and so also was the Chalmers report recommendation that statements made by people who are now dead should be admissible. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether the Government still intend to amend the legislation.
Although I believe that the Bill should get a Second Reading and that people who are accused of war crimes should be prosecuted, I would take great objection if any attempt were made to amend the laws of evidence to bring about those prosecutions. If those people are to be brought to trial, it must be done under existing criminal procedures. The law must not be altered to secure a conviction, as that would be wholly wrong and objectionable.
The Hetherington-Chalmers proposal that evidence on commission should be widely accepted is not satisfactory. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a jury will convict if it cannot see the witnesses, evaluate their credibility and demeanour and do everything normally expected of juries. I strongly believe that if witnesses are to point the finger at individuals, they should—except in the most exceptional circumstances—do so within a court. Juries should not be invited to convict on the strength of documentary evidence, perhaps taken on commission or from some old, frail individual giving evidence on a video against an accused person whom they cannot and will never see.
I support the Bill because if a charge is to be brought against those individuals, it is important that they should be prosecuted. The trials must be fair and be seen to be fair or far more injustice will be done than if we simply let matters lie.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said that the Hetherington-Chalmers report mentioned that many names were translated into the Cyrillic alphabet. It is easy to make mistakes—indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that deliberate mistakes were made. During the cold war under Stalin, Soviet officials may have altered the records for their own reasons. It would be wrong for someone to be convicted on bogus evidence that cannot be cross-examined. I suspect that those who made the alterations and those responsible for keeping the records are now long dead or, if not, would certainly not be keen to speak up.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member rightly mentions various constraints and caveats. He seems to be coming to the conclusion that the chances of securing a conviction in a war crimes trial would be minimal. Does he agree with that, and, if so, why does he support the Bill?

Mr. Darling: I do not believe that. If I believed that there was no prospect of a conviction under the law of evidence in Scotland or England, there would be no point in supporting the Bill. I support the principle of the Bill because I believe that, although there are formidable difficulties, a fair trial is possible. As I said earlier—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present—the Crown must weigh up all those considerations when deciding whether to mount a prosecution. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is possible to support the principle of something while holding honest doubts about it. Ultimately, the question is whether the doubts are sufficient to change one's mind. In my case, they are not.
Other matters were considered this evening and in the debate in the other place. There was a question about what happened in 1948 and whether the British Government decided to abandon war trials for all time. Although I was not born then, I understand why the Parliament of the day decided that it did not wish to go on with the war trials in Germany. However, we must differentiate between investigating about 8 million possible former Nazi party

members—who would all have been culpable to varying degrees—while at the same time trying to rebuild West Germany and Europe, with the position that exists in 1991, when we are confronted with evidence that a few individuals may have been responsible for horrific crimes about which we can do nothing because we lack the jurisdiction.

Ms. Short: The Bill empowers us to prosecute anyone for murder, but we know that after 1948 people accused of the monstrous organisation of mass murder were not prosecuted. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Darling: I thought that I had already dealt with that matter. I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. In view of the shortage of time, if she would like to pursue the matter later I shall be happy to discuss it with her.
I believe that the principle of the Bill must be right. However, one issue troubles me, and it did so when we debated the subject in Committee. It involves pre-trial publicity. Ostensibly the law in England and Scotland is the same. I can do no better than rely on the Minister of State, who told me that they were the same, so that must be right. However, those of us who read the newspapers, north and south of the border, wonder whether there is any relationship between the two legislations. In Scotland, once suspicion has been focused, the press are severely restricted in what they can report, but in England that does not seem to be the position.
We are all familiar with the concept of trial by newspaper. In the fairly recent past, trials have attracted great publicity, and newspapers have felt free to publish photographs and highly damaging articles about an accused individual. The Government must consider whether it is time to amend the law in England to stop such things happening. The issue of the innocence or guilt of an individual is a matter for the jury alone. It is no use saying to the jury, as judges frequently do, "You must ignore anything you read in the newspaper, hear on radio, or see on the television." That is like throwing a skunk into the jury room and asking the jury to forget the smell—that simply will not work. I hope that, having had a year to reflect on the matter, the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to do something about that problem. If he does not, perhaps it is something to which the royal commission could attend when considering what should be done with British criminal law.
On the last two occasions that the House debated the Bill, a majority supported the principle behind it. I hope that that will remain the case. Most people accept that there are difficulties, most of which will have to be shouldered by the Crown. I also hope that if we give the Bill a Second Reading, the other place will note that we have given a considered judgment and have not taken a hasty decision. This debate was born not out of great emotion, but out of a recognition that there is a problem in this country and there are individuals against whom serious allegations have been made which should be answered. We do not underestimate the difficulties that will face the Crown or the accused in the event that he or she is brought to trial.
It seems to me and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the principle behind the Bill must be right,


notwithstanding the difficulties. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I shall endeavour to do all I can to reply to the points raised by hon. Members in what, by any standards, has been an excellent debate. By my counting, if my arithmetic is correct, there have been 32 speeches, including mine, since 3.30 pm—a prodigious number. I have done a rough running count of those in favour and those against, and, to borrow from your terminology, Mr. Speaker, the ayes seem to be 19, including me and my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and the noes 13. However, this is a matter to be decided not by the numbers who spoke in favour or against the Bill, but in the Division Lobbies afterwards and in another place.
I must address the majority of my remarks to those people who are against the Bill, so I shall not say a great deal about those who have spoken strongly in its favour, except to say that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the debate has been marked by extremely calm and lucid argument on both sides, with little emotion and certainly no acrimony, apart from one enjoyable outburst between a Whip and an hon. Lady on the Opposition Benches. The incident entertained the few of us in the Chamber who were privileged to see it, but I suspect that it has nothing to do with us or the Bill.
Of those who have spoken in favour, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said that prosecutions were difficult, but that we should proceed on the issue of principle, and I agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said that he had consulted widely in the British community, including the Jewish community, because he feared that the measure might lead to a growth in anti-Semitism in this country. He and others had seen none of that, so he felt that the Bill should proceed unencumbered, with which I agree.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made a remarkable speech. As I sat listening to him, I could not believe that he had not been legally trained. He stressed the importance of the House exercising its judgment and of individual Members of Parliament deciding the law, willing the law, willing the means and then leaving it to the courts to decide. I entirely agree with him; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) felt much the same. I also agree with the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who had not intended to speak, but I am glad that he decided to do so.
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), spoke with authority, and I agree with all that he was allowed to say in 10 minutes before he was so cruelly cut off by the rule.
I was especially glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) managed to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker. He was able not only to examine the arguments of learned Law Lords and others in another place where, generally speaking, legal experts tend to take one view, but to compare and contrast the views of the senior judiciary—Law Lords and others—with the

developing views of those who are much younger. It was a case of, "Let generation speak to generation". What the hon. and learned Gentleman said perhaps illustrates a substantial generation difference between some of those in another place and some of those who practise with him or who sometimes sit under his eye when he is in court as a recorder.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke most movingly of his recent visit to a concentration camp, but he also spoke unemotionally, and his speech was all the more telling for that. Nobody tried to play on the emotions of any other hon. Member. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) broke her Trappist vow by sprinting from the Whip's seat to the Back Benches to make a powerful speech in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason) also made powerful speeches. We were then treated by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to what the Michelin guide used to call "a little history". I am glad that he gave us that little history of war crimes from 1939 to 1945 and the period immediately after the war, because his speech set much in context. I should like to return to some of his comments when I deal with the important points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also supported the speech in an intervention.
From the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said that they would support the Bill, although they would not seek to advise their hon. Friends. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said. I understand his deep thinking on the issue since last year and the concerns that have moved him to cleave to his earlier decision to support the Bill, although there was a large declaratory element in the reasons that he gave for doing so. The Home Secretary and I are also grateful to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for expressing the view that the Government have acted with constitutional propriety. Some people would not agree, but I do, unlike one or two colleagues who feel that we have not behaved with constitutional propriety. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill represents a change in jurisdiction in the criminal law but does not introduce any new offences. I shall deal with that point when I respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I certainly agree with the strong view—and I have not heard it disputed by any hon. Member from either side of the debate—that there should not be a statute of limitations in this country. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
I owe the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central an answer to the points that they raised about Scottish legislation. I tread with some temerity into Scottish law, all the more so as I see the menacing shape of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) behind me. I am no expert in Spanish—[Laughter.] I am no expert in Spanish practices, which I am sure are not practised at the Scottish Bar.
The Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry recommended that the facility of live television evidence should be available in war crimes trials. The law already provides for that generally, as we saw in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr. Hattersley: What about Scotland?

Mr. Patten: I am coming to that point. I was comparing and contrasting England and Scotland. That provision is now in force for many serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and serious fraud, and not especially for war crimes. Following a period of consultation. the Government proposed that a similar general facility should be provided in Scotland. A provision to that effect was included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill last Session. The provision was removed from the Bill during its parliamentary passage because, I am advised, of the pressure of parliamentary time. The Government remain of the view that live television links should be available for the giving of evidence from abroad in all Scottish trials of all serious crimes. It is the Government's intention to add a provision to that effect and to have it introduced at an early legislative opportunity.

Mr. Darling: Will the Minister tell us when the Government intend to introduce the change? It seems to us that it is being introduced only for the benefit of this legislation. I do not know what consultation the Minister has had. Presumably, from what he said earlier, he is having that consultation in Spain rather than in Scotland. He must understand that there will be deep resentment if the law in Scotland is to be amended simply to enable convictions to take place under this legislation.

Mr. Patten: Any future legislative changes will not be brought forward before the end of this Session. If such changes were made to parliamentary law as it affects Scotland, had any trials begun, they would not be affected by any changes in the law that were coming at a later stage.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: It is difficult to mix it with my hon. and learned Friend, but I will give way on this point on Scottish law and then no more.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It would be absolutely outrageous if it were thought in the House that the reason that the Government withdrew that absurd condition in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was time. We in Scotland are not willing to have our laws of evidence mucked about and watered down just to suit English legislation.

Mr. Patten: The north and south sides of the border should sometimes learn from each other about evidential and other procedures. I am content to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we might learn from some of the ways in which pre-trial publicity is dealt with in Scotland. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that the subject of a Scottish allegation raised interdict proceedings following the preparation of a programme on war crimes. Perhaps we should listen to what Scottish law says and, equally, the Scots should look to English and Welsh law to ensure that television evidence, which can be useful in obtaining convictions under proper process of

those who are accused of murder, manslaughter, fraud, forgery and other serious international crimes, can be achieved.

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Patten: I must try to answer the rest of the arguments. I have given way on the Scottish point and I must now turn to the important points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I greatly respect him and I know that I will not be able to persuade him to change his mind. His speech gives me the opportunity to try to lay to rest two ghosts about what happened in post-war England. The first is that somehow the post-war British Government decided not to proceed against war criminals in this country. With great respect, I must advise my right hon. Friend that not only is there no evidence that there were any such war criminals in this country, but we did not have any laws at the time that would have enabled us to proceed against any such people in this country. That means that at no stage could Her Majesty's Government have decided to stop prosecutions. In any event, it would not have been Her Majesty's Government who would have taken that decision; it would have been the prosecuting authorities of the time.
The second important ghost that we need to lay to rest is that a distinguished Minister came to the Dispatch Box in 1948 and said, on behalf of the Government, that all war crimes trials should come to an end. I shall tell the House what was said on that occasion; indeed, it was widely reported. I have gone into this matter in great detail because I respect the views of those who feel that a binding statement was given at that time. Let us forget the issue whether it is possible to bind one's successors. I have looked at the papers myself and have indirectly employed some historians. It may interest some of my hon. Friends to know that we have a surprising number of historians in the Government service. It is clear to me that the only announcement that was made in this place in 1948 was that the quadripartite allied hearings of alleged war criminals in Germany or German-occupied territory of nationals or foreigners who were then in German-occupied or German territory should cease and that it should be the legislative task of the future German Government to take over those prosecutions. The Federal Republic of Germany took over that legislative burden from 1948 and prosecuted alleged war criminals, not just in 1948, 1958, 1968 and 1978, but almost up to the present day—and those provisions still remain on their statute book.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was, rightly, concerned about fair trials. In his opening speech his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook flagged the fact that we should listen carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and we did so. He raised three important points. The first related to identification and its importance. As I understand it, judges can give clear warnings to juries about identification and its dangers. The English and Welsh system varies from the Scottish system, with its different dock identification system.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point related to process. Under the present law and present procedure, there is nothing to prevent any judge at any time stopping a case from proceeding if he thinks that a


fair trial would not be possible. That important common law principle exists now. I note that I have the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others.
The third point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in his important speech. We have the judgment of the Deputy Chief Justice of England, Lord Justice Tasker Watkins, on this issue. It will always be up to the courts to decide whether a delay acts against the interests of a fair trial. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind can be set at rest on that matter.
Several other opponents of the Bill made their views starkly known, including the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who made several interesting interventions. The opponents also include my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. Among their number is also my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who has considerable expertise in extradition law to which we all pay tribute—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members visit the Library where they will find that "Stanbrook on Extradition" is the standard text for anyone wishing to bone up on that subject.
We have also heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Winchester (Mr.Browne). I guess that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I will never have a meeting of minds over what is and what is not retrospective legislation. But he was unfair to Hetherington and Chalmers, a pair of distinguished former Directors of Public Prosecutions. I do not have any DPPs as close personal friends, but I have taken advice and I am told that they are not men normally given to rash judgments or to setting out on quixotic crusades to achieve prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair to those retired DPPs.
I wish to say three things in response to the important speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. His speech will bear reading. First, the making of statute criminal law in this place is in the hands of all Members of the House, not those of lawyers, however distinguished, in another place or in the courts. Secondly, the very nature of legislation is that it is selective. My right hon. Friend has been in this place a long time and he must know that in the criminal law, for example, we legislate to deal with specific nuisances and evils. These days we rarely legislate generally because much of the generality of criminal law—thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and so on—has already been dealt with.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That is common law.

Mr. Patten: Of course, it is common law. That is an important element in England and Wales.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that in the Bill before the House we are not inventing any new offence. Murder was an offence in Germany and in German-occupied territory between 1939

and 1945. As many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, international law finds its fountainhead back in the fourth Hague convention of 1907. That made it absolutely clear that activities involving murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide were against international law. That was recognised in the manuals of both the British and German armies. There is no doubt that murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide were crimes then, as they are now. It is rather a matter for the judgment of the House and the other place: we must decide whether to extend our jurisdiction and provide the laws, which the courts may then interpret.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, let me say that our judgment must be of equal standing to that of any lawyer outside the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked about the present state of international law on any alleged incidents connected with the Gulf conflict. All the states involved in the Gulf conflict are parties to the Geneva convention of 1949. We took that convention into our own law in 1957. So we have a wide jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world after 1957 under international law.

Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: No. I am afraid that I do not have time.
There is no need for new legislation to deal with those who might be accused of crimes in the Gulf conflict, but there is definitely a need for legislation in the cases which may be covered by the Bill.
As a result of the procedural motion which the House passed on a free vote last week, if the Bill receives a Second Reading—I am confident that it will—it will go straight to a formal Third Reading at a subsequent date. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council explained on Wednesday why we were following that course. The House has given overwhelming support to both the principle of war crimes legislation and the Bill itself. I have no doubt that that support will be expressed again this evening. As my right hon. Friend explained last week, that was one of the decisive factors in the Government's mind in concluding that the Bill should be reintroduced.
As we have said, the Government hope that accommodation will be achieved between this place and another place without the need for any special measures. Nevertheless, the Government concluded that the Parliament Act 1949 should remain in reserve as a means of resolving any irreconcilable differences. The Bill is a good Bill. The task may be regarded as a difficult one, but the Bill should be passed. I look forward to its reaching the statute book, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, at an early date.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 88.

Division No. 98]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David


Ailason, Rupert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Allen, Graham
Baldry, Tony


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Amess, David
Barron, Kevin


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer






Battle, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Bellotti, David
Gorst, John


Bendall, Vivian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gregory, Conal


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Boyes, Roland
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Haynes, Frank


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brazier, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hinchliffe, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Burns, Simon
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Butler, Chris
Howells, Geraint


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kennedy, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Knapman, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Latham, Michael


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dixon, Don
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Durant, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Eastham, Ken
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Fearn, Ronald
Madden, Max


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mans, Keith 


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Maples, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Franks, Cecil
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Freeman, Roger
Morgan, Rhodri


Fry, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Needham, Richard


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Neubert, Sir Michael





Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Norris, Steve
Squire, Robin


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Patnick, Irvine
Stevens, Lewis


Patten, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Pendry, Tom
Sumberg, David


Pike, Peter L.
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raffan, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Redwood, John
Thurnham, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tracey, Richard


Reid, Dr John
Tredinnick, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Richardson, Jo
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wallace, James


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wheeler, Sir John


Rowlands, Ted
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Illsley, Eric


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Knowles, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, David


Body, Sir Richard
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bottomley, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Madel, David


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Malins, Humfrey


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Miller, Sir Hal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cormack, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Couchman, James
Monro, Sir Hector


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Morrison, Sir Charles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mudd, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nelson, Anthony


Faulds, Andrew
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fookes, Dame Janet
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Gardiner, Sir George
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Robertson, George


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grylls, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Harris, David
Short, Clare


Haselhurst, Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Speller, Tony


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunter, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David






Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. John Browne and


Walters, Sir Dennis
Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

To be read the Third time tomorrow, pursuant to Order [12th March].

Orders of the Day — War Crimes Bill [Money]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the War Crimes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) sums in respect of expenditure by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District on the investigation by officers of the Metropolitan Police (with or without other officers) of offences to which that Act applies; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I should like to know how much the Bill will cost. Over what sort of period will money be expended for the investigation and bringing to trial of anyone who is prosecuted under it? How many officers of the Metropolitan police will be taken off their normal duties to pursue inquiries made under the Bill? That is the true cost of what we have done this evening. Police officers, who are urgently needed to fight crime elsewhere in the country, will be bogged down in investigations that will prove fruitless and are likely to be thrown out by any decent British jury.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has asked me those questions. As the explanatory and financial memorandum clearly states, the expenditure incurred will depend on the number of trials.
My hon. Friend asked how many Metropolitan policemen would be needed for the special investigative unit that will have to be set up. The unit, which will indeed be set up by the Metropolitan police commissioner, will require nine officers and supporting staff. At current prices, the unit will cost about £742,000 a year. In Scotland, the equivalent work will be undertaken by the Crown Office. According to the current estimate, the investigative work will cost about £2·1 million in a full year, and the Crown Office in Scotland will incur equivalent expenditure if any trials are pursued there.
I cannot predict the number of trials that will be brought, but they will involve further expenditure on the costs of court rooms and legal aid, both of which, in England and Wales, are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department. In a full year, the costs might be upwards of £2·4 million. The provision of live evidence in England and Wales could cost between £1·5 million and £3 million in any one year.
Last but not least—in view of the importance of ensuring fair trials—is the legal aid fund. We estimate a cost of about £500,000. A low estimate of a full year's costs in England and Wales would be a minimum of £7 million, and the possibility of a maximum of £10 million. After enactment of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make additional funds available to the Metropolitan police to pay for any officers who are needed.

Mr. Peter Viggers: My right hon. Friend has spoken with some confidence. Will he tell us how many prosecutions have been brought in relation to offences that took place between 45 and 50 years ago in other countries, on which he can base his figures?

Mr. Patten: We have consulted a number of authorities that have changed their legislation in the way that is being proposed. The United States authorities have done it rather differently, by seeking the use of extradition to the countries where people are accused. The costs have therefore been different there. We have, however, also taken advice from the prosecuting authorities in Australia and Canada, where a number of investigations have been made and a number of trials have been mounted. That international evidence, as well as the detailed material evidence that is available to the Lord Chancellor's Department, has led us to the figures that I have given.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give us the rough cost per prosecution, given the number of prosecutions that he thinks will result?

Mr. Patten: I cannot do that, because I have no idea how many prosecutions will be made in a full year. The cost will depend on the investigations, the decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General under clause 1(3) and other important issues.

Sir Giles Shaw: I understand the complexity of the issues. Surely, however, my right hon. Friend appreciates that many police forces—excluding the Metropolitan police force—are now engaged in trying to maintain establishments against heavy Government restrictions such as rate capping. Such expenditure as a consequence of the Bill can hardly be justified, in the light of the claims being made for genuine police expenditure in many other parts of the country.

Mr. Patten: This is the west Yorkshire question, to which I always look forward. I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about the police force in his area, as do a number of my hon. Friends. The 43 police forces have to deal all the time with a particular range of burdens. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made available considerably increased funds. Moreover, in the coming year, 700 additional policemen and policewomen will be employed. However, no police force could reasonably have expected this special process to fall on its shoulders. That is why, with the Treasury's concurrence, special provision has been made for it.

Mr. Alistair Darling: When we debated the War Crimes Bill in Committee last year, I believe that the Minister gave me the undertaking that he is giving to his hon. Friends—that if extraordinary expenditure is incurred by a police force outside the Metropolitan police, which is funded in a different way, the Government would consider reimbursement. My recollection may not be right and the Minister may therefore correct me. I did not check the point. Can he assure us that, if a police force incurs extraordinary expenditure, it will be reimbursed? This is of particular relevance to the Lothian and Borders police force in Scotland, which may be the primary police force with responsibility for investigations in Scotland. That expenditure will not be part of the Home Office budget.
The Minister will remember that in Committee the only concession that was made was that an annual report would be prepared giving an account of what had happened in terms of investigations, prosecutions and cost. Can he assure the House that, notwithstanding the fact that the

House cannot amend the Bill, due to the peculiar circumstances in which it is being given its Second Reading tonight, the Government will consider favourably an amendment in another place that would allow a report to be made so that both Houses can monitor the costs involved? I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of them, as he prepares his Budget speech. Given those costs, does not the Minister think that Parliament ought to be told how much is being spent each year? Will he repeat the undertaking that he gave to me 12 months ago? I believe that such an undertaking would be welcomed in all parts of the House.

Mr. Patten: Certainly I stand by the words that I uttered in Standing Committee. I have here the relevant Hansard reports of the debates. I remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) spoke powerfully in favour of an annual report, or a series of reports, not just about the cost of the War Crimes Bill, should it pass through both Houses, but about how the war crimes legislation, if it comes into play, is conducted. I undertook at that stage, and I undertake again tonight, to continue to consider the possibilities of instituting a reporting mechanism. The costs of administration in respect of Scottish courts and the costs of legal aid in respect of the Scottish Home and Health Department would have to be met. I note in particular what the hon. Gentleman said about the Lothian and Borders police force.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the War Crimes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) sums in respect of expenditure by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District on the investigation by officers of the Metropolitan Police (with or without other officers) of offences to which that Act applies; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

That the draft Vehicle Inspectorate Trading Fund Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

FEES AND CHARGES

That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

NUCLEAR FUSION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9025/90, relating to research into controlled nuclear fusion and amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus joint undertaking; and endorses the Government's view that agreement to the new Community Fusion Programme and to extension of the Joint European Torus Programme to 1996 will maximise the scientific value of the latter project and the associated experiments of Member States and that the Community's programme for fusion research should be subject to a rigorous independent assessment of the prospects of fusion in the light of the evidence of progress, before any long-term decisions on a Next Step device are taken.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Select Committees (Membership)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendments to motions Nos. 10, 12 and 15 for debate. I remind the House that this is a narrow debate and should be confined to whether hon. Members should be removed from Committees and replaced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and, under motion No. 15, by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is technically competent to invite the House to divide on each of the motions that you have selected?

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly competent, but the hon. Gentleman knows why I have selected the amendments.

Sir Marcus Fox: I beg to move,
That Mr. Gerald Bowden be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.
I shall speak briefly to the motion and to the other motions which it may be convenient to discuss at the same time:
That Mr. Malcolm Moss be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Cecil Franks be added to the Committee.
That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Keith Mans and Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Hugo Summerson be added to the Committee.
That Mr. Ivor Stanbrook be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Sumberg be added to the Committee.
That Mr. Charles Wardle be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Sir Richard Luce be added to the Committee.
That Mr. Jonathan Sayeed be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.
That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. David Harris be added to the Committee.
The motions affect seven Select Committees, and nine colleagues are prevented from carrying out work that is vital to Parliament, or so I am told.
I can add little to the speech that I made on 21 January. I understand that one or two colleagues thought that it was provocative, which I find unbelievable. Given the number of interventions in that debate, brevity could be the solution.
Having read the debate on 21 January, I can believe only that this is a re-run of that debate and the one before that. If hon. Members wish to place new facts before me, in my usual manner, I shall deal with them as expeditiously as possible. I therefore trust Opposition Members will be as brief as I have been.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall not detain the House too long.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) mentioned new facts being put before him, but they should be put before the Leader of the House, in whose gift many of the changes lie. The right hon. Gentleman has yet to resolve the question of which the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is aware and which is the basis for tonight's debate.
I understand that the debate is narrow, but when such changes are proposed, it is worth questioning the reason for changing the membership of Select Committees. We should question the qualifications of the new members and what contributions they will make. It might be appropriate for the House to suggest subjects for consideration by Select Committees. It is possible to discuss such matters under the terms of the motions.
We must also consider the lack of departmental Committees for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. If nothing is being done to remedy that, it is right to cross-examine and question the Chairman of the Committee of Selection about those important points. The Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts, on Home Affairs and on the Environment have no Scottish Members. It is true, however, that the Select Committees on Energy and Defence each have two Scots Members—that is Scots representing Scottish constituencies—while one Scots Member is a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. These are important facts to bear in mind when we are considering appointing new Members to Select Committees. It is unfortunate that not one of the Members proposed represents a Scottish constituency.

Mr. John Gorst: I have followed carefully the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he aware that geographical considerations, and even the consideration of party membership, do not reflect only complaints that can be addressed to the way in which Members are selected for membership of Select Committees? There is a paucity of representation of certain political strands of opinion, even within parties, in the selection of those who serve on Select Committees. That will never be admitted but it is a fact.

Mr. Kirkwood: These are extra complexities—they were never known to me—that will add to the difficulties of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. They constitute another reason why the Chairman should have a discussion with the Leader of the House. Surely the Committee of Selection should discuss some of the grievances that are held by Conservative Members in addition to some of those that I am suggesting that we should consider.
Surely we are entitled also to consider the relative merits of alternative nominees. I suggest humbly that I might be considered as a member of some of the Committees, but by no means all of them. I readily defer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a well-known defence expert. I say that as one who watches "Newsnight" each night. He has Leuchars air base in his constituency and he is a man who knows a tactical air-to-surface missile when he sees one. I defer with great ease and facility to the greater knowledge and experience of defence matters of my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Perhaps the Committee of Selection will take into account the lamentable representation of the minority parties on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. A member of a minority party has failed to attend that Committee for almost three years continuously. I have been engaged in correspondence with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for at least two years, asking whether the minority parties will provide a representative for a Committee which everyone in the House agrees is an important scrutiny Committee to control Ministers.

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree. Each place on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is an important one. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is not responsible in any party-political sense for the hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) refers. He should take up the matter directly with those who are concerned. We are talking about the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes).
I was arguing my case to be considered for membership of six or seven Committees. As someone who was born and bred in Scotland, I have an admirable pair of qualifications, surely, for membership of six of the Committees in the context of the debate.
One of the principal reasons for debating the motions is that the Select Committee on the Environment is precluded from considering some of the important issues that obtain north of the border. The one that immediately comes to mind is the disposal of nuclear waste. Some of the proposals that are being brought forward are causing much controversy, heartache and soul-searching north of the border. As things stand, the Committee is constrained within the remit of the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for matters south of the border. I know, of course, that the Committee has been doing some excellent work in the preparation of reports, including that on Nirex, that are important north of the border. It is engaged in an inquiry on the landfill of waste and one on the pollution of beaches. It is also conducting an inquiry into eco-labelling. It has recently prepared an important report on the main estimates for the Property Services Agency. All those matters are important, but they relate exclusively to issues that are south of the border and they have no bearing on what is happening in Scotland.
It is important that in this debate we convince the Chairman of the Committee of Selection that if we cannot have departmental Select Committees to deal with issues affecting Northern Ireland and Scotland, he must take urgent steps to place hon. Members representing Scottish and Northern Ireland seats on the other Select Committees and he must also prevail on the Committee Chairmen to go north of the border, consider subjects that are important north of the border and report on those issues. In that way what is happening in Northern Ireland and Scotland can be considered.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring with such approval to some of the reports that my Committee, the Select Committee on the Environment, has published. However, he missed our report on Northern Ireland. We conducted an inquiry there which was well received in Northern Ireland. My Committee's remit is the remit of the Department of the Environment as constituted here. We could therefore go to Northern Ireland. However, even placing a Scots Member on my Committee would not enable it to carry out an inquiry in Scotland; that is another matter altogether. -I should like to have a Scots Member on my Committee and if one were to give his name to the Chairman of the Selection Committee, that would encourage me.
However, with regard to the minority parties, I had a Liberal Member on my Committee until 1986 when he became the Liberal party Chief Whip. We kept that place empty for the rest of that Parliament, but no one came forward to fill it. We were disappointed that the minority


parties were not anxious to fill that place. Since then, the Committee has been composed entirely of Conservative and Labour Members, because we decided that it was impossible to ask anyone else to come forward.

Mr. Kirkwood: I pay tribute to and acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's distinguished service as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. However, he does not understand the difficulties that we face. The hon. Member to whom he referred who relinquished his place on the Environment Committee was obliged to do that because we were offered, and then chose to take up, one of the number of places to which we are constrained on another Select Committee. He had to come off so that we could get someone else on to another Committee. We do not have the luxury of simply coming off a Committee. We have to deploy our resources as best we can and that applies to other minority parties.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that he would dearly love to have a Scots Member on his Committee. Here I am. I humbly offer myself and my experience. I modestly offer to be a diligent attender. There may be a division on one, if not three, of the motions and I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets his way. He may even vote for me.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: With respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and without impugning his versatility or modesty, if he wants to spread his resources among the Committees, why has an amendment been tabled to place him on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee which already has a Liberal Member?

Mr. Kirkwood: Berwick-upon-Tweed used to be part of Scotland and we still have territorial ambitions in that direction. Perhaps the answer to the problem is that we should annex Berwick-upon-Tweed as that would give us a Scottish Member on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. However, that is a slightly roundabout way of achieving our end. There are more direct ways of getting Scottish Members on to Select Committees.
Scottish Members on Select Committees is very much the second best. I am not arguing for additional Scottish Members so that a Scottish flavour and tone can be brought to the deliberations; I am putting forward these points because they are my only means of trying to force the Leader of the House to implement the Standing Orders. Technically, he is in breach of the Standing Orders as he has not put forward names for Select Committees to deal with Scottish affairs and with Northern Ireland affairs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no option. I thought that all was now sweetness and light between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. In the past few days the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been saying that, as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is no longer the leader of the Conservatives, things between their two parties are different.

Mr. Kirkwood: Let the hon. Gentleman come to our next conference.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that all that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said the other day does not mean anything? Is his party still falling out with the Tories? We want to know.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am tempted to stray out of order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to come to our next conference I shall pay for his day ticket. If he listens to what is actually said, he will not have to make it up on the hoof. Of course, he is merely trying to score points.

Mr. Gorst: How will the hon. Gentleman cope if the votes go in his favour and he is elected to all the Committees? I put the question not as a disaffected, non-selected Member, but out of interest.

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall cross that bridge when I come to it. I am very willing to learn. I am young, fit and eager for experience. It will be time enough to start worrying when I am elected to all the Committees.
Scots Members have a record of assistance to Select Committees. Two of the most formative experiences of my life are relevant to this debate. I attended a comprehensive school—Cranhill senior secondary—in the east end of Glasgow. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who was there at the same time, has just told me that the school is about to be closed. I could indeed bring some interesting educational experience to bear on the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee. Having graduated from Heriot-Watt university—I took a BSc in pharmacy—I became a Member of this House. A few weeks later the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but then a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science—announced that the school of pharmacy at Heriot-Watt was to be closed, on the ground that the quality of the graduates was not high enough. Thus, my combined school and university experience has certainly provided me with something to say in the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee. In addition, I have played in pop groups, so I could contribute to debates on the arts. We used to get 27s 6d for playing at scout hall gigs on Friday nights. A panoply of experience could be brought to the deliberations of these Committees, of which the Education, Science and Arts Committee is but one.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has insight and experience in a wide range of the subjects with which the Select Committees deal. Does he agree that, important as the work of these Committees is, the really important scrutiny must be done by a Scottish Select Committee and Northern Ireland Select Committee, as Scottish affairs and Northern Ireland affairs are two areas of government in respect of which this House is not scrutinising Government action properly?

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman states the case very succinctly.
I do not need to say very much more. I do not take any pleasure in saying to the Leader of the House—it is not meant as a warning—that the motions that are tabled every time the membership of a Select Committee changes will be used by us for the purpose of making the point that matters pertaining to education and science in Scotland


and in Northern Ireland are not being considered as thoroughly as are such matters as they affect other parts of the United Kingdom.
In particular, the Energy Select Committee has direct relevance to what is going on in the North sea. The Environment Committee and the Home Department Committee examine matters south of the border. I refer also to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Defence Select Committee and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which are crucial in respect of public policy. At the moment they have the luxury of scrutinising the work of Departments south of the border. That opportunity does not exist in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Every time the Government try to change the membership of Committees, the same device and procedure will be used so that hon. Members who seek to serve on Committees, let alone come off Committees, will have to sit and listen to half an hour or longer of debate. Perhaps Divisions will take the odd 15 minutes here or there. That will happen time after time until the Government get it into their heads that the situation will not change to any great degree after the next general election. The Government of the day, of whichever party, will have to face the difficulty in future.
There are alternatives. The Joint Select Committees are looking for English hon. Members who are Scots born and have bona fide interests in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The Government are not examining those matters properly and urgently, and the House of Commons will have to consider changes time after time until they do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to say, but never once did he indicate to me or for the purposes of the Official Report that he was moving an amendment, and I cannot propose the amendment until he moves it. Will he now do so?

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out `Mr. Patrick Thompson' and insert `Mr. Archy Kirkwood'.

Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was so overcome with modesty that he omitted one important point, which is that the Select Committee on Procedure considered this matter in October last year. In its report, it made it quite clear that the initiative for putting the matter right lay with the Leader of the House. I understand that there is a convention that the Government should respond to Select Committee reports within three months. The Leader of the House and the Government have not responded to that Select Committee report. The right hon. Gentleman is doubly in dereliction of his duty and should tell us what he will do in response to that Select Committee report on this important matter.

Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was formally moving the amendment to motion No. 12, which Mr. Speaker selected for debate. You read out, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) cannot do that until later. He moved the amendment to motion No. 10 on education, science and arts. I have that very clear.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was concerned about hon. Members from Scotland being on Committees. Of course, several hon. Members from Scotland represent the Labour party on Committees. Truth to tell, if we examine the amendments, we shall find that they represent not so much Scotland as the Liberal party. Although I can understand the desire of the minority parties to have representation on Select Committees, as I said earlier, with the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, representation by minority parties has not been too successful. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) disclaimed any responsibility for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), from a minority party, who has not attended the Committee for several years. When that hon. Member's name was put forward, it was at the request of the minority parties that an hon. Member should be placed on the Joint Select Committee of Statutory Instruments. Naturally, the Committee that I chair turned to the minority parties and the Whip of the largest minority party to ask for a replacement so that the membership of the Committee should not be burdened by an absentee.
It is true that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not a glamorous part of parliamentary work. It does not have television coverage. That is not because of any lack of desire for it on the part of the Committee members; it is simply that no televison channel wants to go to the Committee to record its proceedings. Therefore, it remains a relatively obscure and hidden part of the work of Parliament.
I should have thought that, under the terms of the Standing Order that established the Joint Select Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, the description entirely accorded with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—it is an absolutely crucial sector of public policy. The Joint Select Committee was created in order to scrutinise Ministers who had been granted powers under primary legislation to ensure that they do not abuse their powers, the huge volume of delegated legislation—more than 2,000 statutory instruments and regulations every year—are intra vires, within the Minister's power, their drafting is clear, they do not contain ambiguities, make unusual use of powers or contain any retrospective provison when the primary legislation does not do so. All of those issues are important to Parliament and provide some safeguard and scrutiny for the people of our country. Ministerial powers should be curtailed where there is any possibility of abuse.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, unglamorous and obscure though it is, was established because, in the past, Ministers have exceeded and abused their powers. I can well recall that the Joint Committee made a report about the powers of officers to collect information for the Scottish poll tax that clearly exceeded the powers of the primary legislation and was the subject


of a heated debate in the Chamber, when the Opposition spokesmen made a powerful case to show that the Government were riding roughshod over citizens' rights and exceeding the powers of primary legislation.
It seems curious that the Liberal Whip should repudiate someone who was put on a Committee with the Liberals' agreement, when they were friends and waved to each other, albeit from separate buses. Now, they have stopped waving to each other and go, not just in separate buses, but on separate trains and keep well away from each other except to exchange an occasional scowl. It seems that the Liberal Whip cannot evade responsibility for that original action. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows, I have made several approaches to him, the latest of which was that if any of the minority parties cannot provide a Member for the Select Committee, the Labour party would be pleased to do so because it is keen to exercise scrutiny on behalf of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Wallace: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection is present and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong. The Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is set up not by the Selection Committee, but by the House, and has been doing a good job without the help of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). Does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have been nominated to all the Committees, not so that an additional minority party is represented, but because we needed the consent of the Members involved to table the motions? Nothing would have pleased me more than to submit the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I was unable to do so. The point we are trying to make is that the absence of Scots Tories holds up the Scottish Select Committee—we are using this device to raise that issue.

Mr. Cryer: It is a particularly poor device in view of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman's party has created for one Select Committee—[Interruption.] As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be prepared to acknowledge, if I may continue without the continuous heckling that is going on behind me—something that is entirely within the traditions of the House—the Chamber establishes all Select Committees, including the Committee of Selection, and all Select Committees are responsible to the Chamber. The parallel that I draw tonight is absolutely apt and accurate. In the midst of some vicious heckling from the Liberal Democrats—their smooth face has fallen tonight so that we can see the viciousness and the political chicanery that go on beneath that facade—I want to make the point that if the Liberal Democrats wish to make a case for an extension to Select Committees, they should have a good record themselves. That is palpably not the case. It is fair for the House to take such a record into account.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not realise that he was unwittingly ambushing a united attempt by Scottish Members to get something done about the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish

Affairs. That was the whole purpose of tabling the amendments. Scottish Labour Members support that attempt.

Mr. Norman Hogg: It would have helped if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had made some reference to that point in his speech.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did so, as Hansard will show. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was getting some heckling from behind, he should have been puzzled by the satisfied smiles of Conservative Members. He has given them some arguments to bolster their own case, although not successfully. The reason why we are taking up the time of the House is to highlight the enormous injustice to Scotland of not having a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, although other Committees cover all the other Departments and work of the House—except Northern Ireland and Scotland.
There is a perfect attendance tonight by all the women Scottish Members. There is nothing unusual about that, yet only one woman, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), is a member of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) talked about the criteria for selection for Committees. He mentioned geography, party composition and the possibility of someone standing within the parties. He did not mention whether any effort was made to provide a fair balance of women Members. That is another issue which I am willing to take up, for its own sake and as another means of drawing the House's attention to the lack of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that there will be a fair balance of women Members on such a Committee when we manage to achieve it.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Lady has slightly misunderstood my intervention. I tried to get across the point that the Liberal Democrats addressed themselves to the criteria that the hon. Lady has enumerated, but that one heard little about liberalism, non-conformity and an approach to the facts rather than party-political criteria. Those are often lacking in the approach of the Committee of Selection—or at least some members of it. That is my complaint. I should have been more inclined to support the Liberal Democrats if they had made it their complaint.

Mrs. Fyfe: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the Government concede this matter of justice and finally let us have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his colleagues have anything to do with it, the Committee will be full of reason, justice, truth and light, and will have every possible quality that one could imagine. [HON. MEMBERS: "And women."] Yes, it has a fair proportion of women and that will help to ensure that it has all those qualities.
Until the Government provide a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that we are not discussing the non-existence of a Select Committee. We are discussing the motion and the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Lady will oblige me, keep within the procedures of the House and discuss what is on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Fyfe: I believe that this is relevant to the motion—[Laughter.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the hon. Lady, not the laughter of hon. Members below the Gangway.

Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, I thought that my remarks were entirely relevant to the issue because the amendments would not have been tabled without that concern, on which Scottish Members are united. These matters will continue to be pressed until we succeed.

11 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar: I start with a rather obvious point that I would not normally make, although it is often factually correct. I refer to the total absence from this debate of any hon. Member from the Scottish Conservative party.
There is no doubt that one of the underlying causes of the motion is the refusal of hon. Members who represent Scottish seats in the Tory interest to serve on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Their absence is a mark of considerable disrespect, because although I know that some of them were in the House this evening, none has come into the Chamber now either to listen to the debate or to put a point of view. It is also disappointing that no representative from the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wishes to make a point, she may do so by intervening.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Since Scotland is not mentioned on the Order Paper, I can see nothing odd about that.

Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Lady will listen to the argument being unfolded—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to hear that—[Interruption.] I am delighted—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scotland is not mentioned on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dewar: I have not, Madam Deputy Speaker, felt so affrighted since I was in primary school.
Serious matters are at stake. This debate is part of a continuing argument of real significance to those involved in the Select Committee system and to the Committee of Selection. The absences that I have referred to are unfortunate. I am also disappointed because I understand that the Leader of the House does not intend to enter the debate. Although there is a constitutional theory that the Leader of the House has nothing to do with these matters, none of us is naive enough to believe that or so to undervalue the right hon. Gentleman's activities among his colleagues.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is understating his case. It is not a question of a constitutional convention. I repeat that the Select Committee on Procedure has particularly charged that the Leader of the House must try to resolve this matter, but he has not.

Mr. Dewar: It is extremely uncharacteristic of me to understate my case. I am astonished at my own modesty, and am delighted to be corrected. It is a fair point. As I remember, there was some trenchant criticism from the Select Committee on Procedure about the failure to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is remarkable that we are only now beginning to tempt—as I see from the body language opposite me—the Leader of the House to break his Trappist vows. I gladly give way to him.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurray."] I must advise the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that I do not remember any Trappist vows. The reason for my not seeking to speak in the debate is simple. I am obeying your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, because some of the points that have been raised are entirely irrelevant to the debate and to my position. It is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). At the appropriate time I shall, of course, respond to the Select Committee on Procedure, but that is not an issue this evening.

Mr. Dewar: Well, perhaps I shall be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that that is a mistaken impression.
I must welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) who, in a cloud of dust and good intention, has arrived on the Treasury Bench. I doubt whether his presence will do us any good, but I am glad to see him there.
I make it clear that, among Labour Members at least, there is no animus towards the hon. Members whose progress out of and into Select Committees we are attempting to block tonight. No one is throwing aspersions on their character or competence. I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will not misunderstand if I also stress that we do not necessarily imply that he has superior or particularly valuable qualifications for the work of the Environment or any other Select Committee, but he has one qualification which seems extremely relevant: he represents a Scottish constituency. It is perhaps an accident of geography or a peculiarity of the Scottish system that he has been elected in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but he has been elected.
The point of the motion is that there are real reasons why we should artificially reinforce the Scottish membership of the Select Committees. That is not an argument that I would normally sustain. In a way it is an odd argument. I understand entirely why the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who has risen on several occasions, is antipathetic to that argument, but it is an important argument and it is justified by the strange fact, in the Select Committee system, that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has not made its appearance, for reasons that we understand.
It would not be possible to move the motion, in defiance of the advice of the Committee of Selection, if the Scottish Affairs Select Committee had not failed to appear and if it was scrutinising the work of the Scottish Office. That is the kernel of the case for removing the hon. Members who have been proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir


M. Fox) and his colleagues and substituting that ever willing workhorse, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
There is a certain air of good nature about these proceedings, but no one should underestimate the strength of feeling on the issue, the sense of grievance about the parliamentary machinery and the lack of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the remarkable gap that exists. I recognise that there is a tendency among Conservative Members to shrug off the absence of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee and, therefore, to devalue the positive case for the substitution that we seek to make, but that is a mistake.
I would be open to the argument that we should not press the motion if I were convinced that there were ways in which we could set up a Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which would remove the need for the artificial reinforcement represented by the motion. I do not wish to labour the point, but I am satisfied that for many years we have done everything that we can within the rules of the House to persuade the Government, the Committee of Selection and Conservative Members to moderate their view and set up the Select Committee. It is because we have failed to make progress that there is a strong case for the substitution that we seek to make.
We have offered to reduce the number of members of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which was originally the largest Select Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing a Select Committee which does not exist, a matter to which I have already drawn attention. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would direct his comments to the amendment and the main motion.

Mr. Dewar: I do not intend to deal with the Select Committe on Statutory Instruments, &c., for example, or any of the other Committees that I could discuss, which are not mentioned in the motion. I am entirely in your hands, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—or arms, if Madam Deputy Speaker wants, but there would be no case for the motion if there were a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. There would be no strong case for the motion if there was a genuine opportunity to establish such a Committee or to persuade the powers that be that there should be a Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
I merely wish to explain—it might be a matter of contention—why I at least am satisfied that there is no way to proceed other than by the tactics represented by the amendment. I was simply making the point—I shall not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we have made every concession that we reasonably can on the numbers on the Committee, and by accepting representatives from non-Scottish seats and one-off ad hoc Committees to consider a specific and important matter of interest in Scotland. We have in vain made several such concessions.
I wish to clear up a slight dispute to which reference was made in recent weeks. I am aware of only one occasion when the Labour party baulked at a suggestion which, it was said, might clear the way for a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The authorities suggested to me that if I were prepared to waive the Standing Order that demanded that there should be 16 Scots on Scottish Standing Committees considering Scottish Bills, thus relieving the burden on

Conservative Back Benchers, something might be possible. That was interesting, because it implied that, if the right bribe were taken, it would be possible to form a Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
I did not believe that it was right to go down that road. Short of that, we have offered every conceivable concession that we could responsibly offer. We have got nowhere. That is why we are considering motion No. 12 and why Labour Members believe that that approach should be pursued tonight and in future when the opportunity arises.
There is another reason why the motion has considerable substance. I pray in aid not only the present Leader of the House but his predecessor, now Secretary of State for Energy. We have been told more than once that we do not need to worry too much or to mourn the absence of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee because Scottish Members serve on other Select Committees which can do valuable and useful work considering Scottish issues.
The implication is that we should use other Select Committees to form a surrogate scrutiny machine and ensure that there is Scottish representation on them. Taking the advice of the Leader of the House, it is not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that what perhaps in normal circumstances would be seen as a preponderance of Scottish Members on other Select Committees is justified in these special circumstances. That is the purpose of the motions.
The Leader of the House mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. I heard tonight from one or two of its members that the Committee was thinking of considering a particular Scottish subject. Of course I welcome that, but it is a limited approach. The Chairman of the Environment Select Committee—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—said that there are often difficulties in defining the remit. That makes Scottish subjects difficult or even impossible to tackle.
As I am sure that you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, within the past day or two, we have had a Department of Trade and Industry report dealing with the Scottish steel industry, particularly the vexed issue of Ravenscraig. Strangely, we proposed that specific, one-off subject for a special Scottish Affairs Select Committee, but it was turned down by the Government authorities. The report was useful. It established beyond peradventure that, according to the evidence, the Department of Trade and Industry had been totally inactive in promoting the cause of the Scottish steel industry. We were given extremely interesting information about the way in which the Scottish Office laid down—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying far from what I see on my copy of the Order Paper.

Mr. Dewar: I am certainly prepared to heed your words, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: With great respect, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the report. Its recommendations are very different from what he says.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not concerned with that report. I have just made that point.

Mr. Dewar: I apologise if I have entered a note of controversy into the proceedings, for that was not my


intention. The last thing that I want is to quarrel with the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, who produced an excellent and extremely helpful report—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not eulogise about a Select Committee report to which the Order Paper makes no reference.

Mr. Dewar: I thought that there was always room. in the House for the occasional gracious pleasantry, but I see no percentage in flattering the hon. Gentleman. I leave that matter because I am confident that there will be a debate soon in Government time on the Floor of the House, as the Committee recommends. I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee and I will make common cause on at least that point.
Perhaps I was misled, Madam Deputy Speaker, because although there have been one or two useful Scottish reports from other Select Committees, they cannot play the role of a surrogate Scottish Committee that examines the Scottish Office as required. If there is to be any hope of getting useful service out of those Committees, it is not unreasonable to seek proper representation of Scottish Members on them. I refer to representation not only of the Liberal Democrats—as I am sure they would be the first to agree—but of all the other parties as well.
I therefore take the view that we should support the general drive, thrust and intention of the motion. Perhaps I should leave it there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that there is a certain restlessness on the Conservative Benches as such arguments are deployed. I stress that that is so of the Conservative Benches, because I know that there is no restlessness elsewhere.
I hope that this will not be taken as a threat, but late night sittings such as this are likely to become a feature of the remainder of this parliamentary Session. There exists a good deal of justified anger, and in those circumstances it is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) to expect such measures to pass through the House without scrutiny or challenge. Although he made a charmingly brief speech, the hon. Gentleman was a little flippant, and I hope that he will think again.
The Leader of the House made it clear that he does not believe that he can shift, but I hope that he will indicate whether—to follow the logic of his own argument about the role of other Select Committees in the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—he has some sympathy with the arguments advanced by hon. Members on this side of the House.
Selection is always a difficult business. I was interested to hear interventions about the dangers of making selections on a geographical or party basis. That is a naive objection. At one point, we suggested that we could easily establish a Select Committee on the basis that it has no Conservative majority. The Conservatives seemed to think the matters in question were very important—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going wide of the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dewar: That was an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There have been enough asides tonight. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will refer to the motion before the House.

Mr. Dewar: I was just finishing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try hard not to get my second wind on the basis of interventions or advice.
I accept the difficulties, but there is a genuine point of geographical substance that is not pork barrelling or a narrow point of the kind that the hon. Member for Shipley fears. We are making a genuine attempt to build into the system a safeguard and a scrutiny mechanism for Scotland—of which it has been deprived through a series of shabby and unfortunate circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the House will view with sympathy the suggested changes that the motion incorporates.

Amendment negatived,

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Gerald Bowden be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Mr. Patrick Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENERGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Malcom Moss be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Cecil Franks be added to the Committee.—[ Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Keith Mans and Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Hugo Summerson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out `Mr. Ralph Howell' and insert 'Mr. Archy Kirkwood'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 123.

Division No. 99]
[11.20 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Alton, David
McKelvey, William


Barron, Kevin
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, A. J.
McMaster, Gordon


Bellotti, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Maxton, John


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Meale. Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carr, Michael
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Clelland, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Prescott, John


Darling, Alistair
Reid, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Foulkes, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fyfe, Maria
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Worthington, Tony


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. James Wallace and


Kennedy, Charles
 Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew






Chapman, Sydney
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chope, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knowles, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John.
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawrence, Ivan


Curry, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dixon, Don
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Foster, Derek
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haynes, Frank
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Raffan, Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Redwood, John


Hind, Kenneth
Riddick, Graham


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Spicer, Sir James (Dorset W)


Janman, Tim
Squire, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stevens, Lewis


Key, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kilfedder, James
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhlll)
Mr. Timothy Boswell.


Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Ivor Stanbrook be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Sumberg be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Mr. Charles Wardle be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Sir Richard Luce be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

DEFENCE

Ordered,
That Mr. Jonathan Sayeed be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. William Powell be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Harris be added to the Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Homelessness (Leicester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the very serious and growing issue of homelessness in the city of Leicester. I refer not only to families and single people who have nowhere to live but to the effect that the homelessness of these people has on others who desperately need housing but who cannot get it because such diminishing housing as there is goes as a priority to the homeless.
This is a growing problem. It is getting worse all the time, and it has grown seriously in the past few months. It is estimated that there are between 200 and 400 homeless people in Leicester, the majority of whom are single homeless, but there are homeless families. The number of young homeless people has grown from a small percentage to between 30 and 40 per cent. They are entitled to homes and the local authority is under an obligation to house them.
At Christmas, I visited Knighton house, where marvellous volunteers were looking after people who otherwise would have been sleeping rough, probably in the parks, over Christmas. Yesterday, I again visited Knighton house and Border house in my constituency and a hostel for the homeless in Loughborough road. I pay tribute to the professionals from the homeless unit of the city council, people from Night Shelter and individuals such as my friend Lawrie Simpkin who devote their time as volunteers to serving homeless people.
They are doing their best, but in all the homes and hostels for the homeless that I have visited I have found a deep sense of frustration. When I asked them, 'What would you like me to talk about in Parliament, where your voice can be heard only through me?", I received the same answer each time: "We need resources, money, places for people to play, sleep and work and help, but we are not getting it."
The effect of that on families and on people who demand homes but cannot get them is devastating. It escalates like a waterfall of suffering; it is a spiral of homelessness. At the top of the housing pile is the city council whose job it is to provide houses. Unfortunately, since they took office, the Government have effectively prevented council house building, so there is no new stock. At the same time, they have instituted the right to buy, so that the number of available houses has shrunk. They have prevented councils that have sold their houses from using the money they obtained to maintain and improve houses or to build new houses. Only 20 per cent. of that money may be used for such purposes.
There are fewer houses because none are being built and because people have the right to buy them, and homelessness is growing because of people's desperate need to rent houses as they cannot afford to buy. Such people were on the housing list before, but they are being joined by people whose homes have been repossessed because they cannot pay their mortgages as they are out of work. Some of those people were former council tenants who were encouraged to buy their homes but now cannot afford to pay for them.
What is the council doing? It is providing bed- and-breakfast accommodation. It costs £33 a week to cover the

rent, water rates and poll tax on a council house, but it costs £40 a night to put someone in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is not only wasteful of human resources and causes misery to the people involved but is financially mad.
When the council has placed people into temporary accommodation, it is its duty to provide them with homes. That means that, whenever homes become available, they are given to homeless people, while those on the housing list have to wait. As a result, the housing list is becoming longer. On 13 March, there were 10,656 applicants. That means that 30,000 to 35,000 people are waiting for a home, and some of them will be living in desperately overcrowded conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will know, as I do, that our mail bags and surgeries are full of complaints from those who are desperate for housing, which they badly need but cannot obtain.
There are 10,656 applicants on the waiting list and there are 3,256 on the transfer list. If, two years ago, people wanted accommodation on the New Parks estate, for example, in my constituency, they would wait for nine to 12 months. The waiting list now could be three to four years. Young people who marry cannot afford homes. How are they meant to live? People are living with their in-laws or their parents. These people are living in desperately overcrowded conditions. There may be two rooms, but they have three or four children. I am speaking of husbands and wives living together, single-parent families and elderly people. The suffering stretches across the community.
Homelessness is a problem for not only the homeless. It is a problem for those who have homes but need better or different ones. There is also a problem for those who are trying to help and to serve. As I have said, there is a problem for the entire community. If we as a "decent" society cannot provide homes for people who are without money—people who cannot get jobs, people who are disadvantaged—we are a rotten society. The trouble is that our society is becoming more rotten every day as disadvantage spreads and poor people become poorer. More people are dispossessed, with the result that there are more and more repossessions. Those who are looking after the homeless in Leicester told me yesterday that in the past eight months the problem has burgeoned. I do not understand why the Minister finds that funny, but he seems to do so. It is one of the tragedies of our time that there is such homelessness. It is the inevitable result of a rotten housing policy that is produced by a Government who do not understand the needs of ordinary people. Above all, they do not understand the needs of those who desperately require homes.
I challenge the Minister—I am sure that he would help personally if he could do so—to visit Knighton house, Border house and shelters for the homeless generally in Leicester and to listen to those who are trying to serve. I challenge him to spare time on his rounds, wherever he goes, for a visit to Leicester. If he does so, he will understand why I am so pleased to have had a brief opportunity this evening to put before the House the needs of my constituents and others. I am speaking of the needs of the homeless in Leicester, and those needs are becoming more acute daily. We need resources, understanding and care from the Government and from those who are responsible for housing within the machinery of government. I call for action now.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising an issue of interest in Leicester, but one which is of national importance. I agree with him that the despair which he sees at his surgery, and which I see at mine, must be seen by Ministers and many other Tory Members. I pay tribute to the professionals and non-professionals who do so much in Leicester to try to ameliorate some of the worst effects of homelessness.
I reinforce the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. The Government cannot escape their responsibility for the causes of homelessness or their refusal to act to remove them. It is clear that Leicester's responsibility to house the homeless must inevitably mean that other people will be on the waiting lists for longer. That problem has been exacerbated during the past 10 years by the Government's refusal to allow local authorities to build more homes. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Planning will be aware from his visits around London, before he rejoined the Government that local authorities statutory obligation to house the homeless inevitably causes resentment among people on waiting lists as they see their chances of obtaining a new home in a reasonable time recede.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that, as an immediate step towards removing some of the problems arising from homelessness, the Government should restore to local authorities the freedom to build more houses. Local authorities would then be better able to fulfil their legal obligation to house the homeless. Such a step would also offer some hope in the short to medium term to people who want a home in the public sector, but are denied one as a direct consequence of Government policy towards the building of new council houses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising on the Adjournment this important subject. It may be helpful if I describe the background of the Government's housing policy before I consider the specific points relating to Leicester.
The Government are committed to making good housing available to everyone. During our term of office, home ownership has risen from 57 per cent. to 68 per cent. of the population. Over the same period, 2 million new houses have been built and the number of dwellings per thousand of the population has increased by 8 per cent. At the same time, quality has improved. The number of unfit dwellings fell between 1981 and 1986—the date of the last survey—from 1·14 million to 1·05 million. During the same period the number of dwellings lacking basic amenities almost halved.
Funding is also being more carefully targeted. The rising programme of housing association new build, expanded considerably by the use of mixed funding arrangements, is aimed at the areas of greatest need. For the longer term, our policies will also revive the private rented sector, despite the efforts, I am sorry to say, of the Opposition over many years to undermine that important element in any workable housing market.
Our enlarged estate action programme, raised from £190 million to £270 million in the coming year, ensures

that priority goes to improving the worst estates. It also ensures that those improvements give the best possible value for money. The new private sector improvement grant system is designed to ensure that resources are directed to the poorest people living in the worst conditions, while active home improvement agency services make sure that it reaches them.
It is against that improving background that the problem of homelessness should be seen—a problem which affects countries abroad as well as Britain. The problem arises from many different causes, including the generation gap, the breakdown of relationships in families, and the demand of young people for greater freedom and independence. Housebuilding is only part of the answer. Personal economic independence is just as important, and here the whole range of Government policies are relevant.
On the housing front, we have to begin with the worst aspects of the problem. Those sleeping rough, with no kind of shelter, are obviously a top priority. In London, we have a special £96 million programme now under way—the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of it—to provide additional hostel places and longer-term move-on accommodation. Six hundred hostel places and 900 places in move-on schemes will come on stream over the next few months, with substantially more expected over the next two years. I mention this because we are aware that a number of the people who are sleeping rough in London do not originate in the capital. We have targeted our present efforts on London, where the problem of rough sleeping is most acute, but we will be considering how the initiative can be extended to other parts of the country in the future, with the help of voluntary organisations.
We are similarly concerned for those who present themselves to local authorities as being statutorily homeless. The most acute problems are in London and in the south-east. Here, we are spending £300 million over this year and next year to increase the amount of rented housing that is available. Our aim is to reduce the need for local authorities to make bed-and-breakfast accommodation available to homeless families by increasing the number of lettings available to the homeless. Priority is being given to getting empty local authority and housing association property back into use and to the release of tenanted property by using cash incentives to encourage better-off tenants to move into owner-occupation. Our aim is to provide 15,000 units over the two years.
We are tackling the wider national problem on a range of fronts. Housing management is vital—a point to which I shall return in a moment—and we are introducing a number of performance indicators to encourage the best practice. High rent arrears represent funding opportunities forgone, and high void rates condemn people to homelessness quite unnecessarily.
How local authorities administer the legislation on homelessness is also important. We are revising the code of guidance to provide clearer advice and fairer treatment for those who apply as being homeless. The consultation draft was warmly welcomed by both the local authority associations and voluntary groups working with the homeless. We hope to publish the revised code around the beginning of May. We also take careful account of homelessness in allocating spending resources under the housing investment programme, and both the general needs index and housing needs index used to allocate resources have been revised this year.
We recognise that short-term leasing can sometimes have a part to play. We have therefore made arrangements to permit local authorities that apply to us to operate short-term leasehold accommodation outside the housing revenue account and thereby avail themselves of a more favourable financial regime.
I turn now to the specific problem of Leicester. Leicester's homelessness problem has, I know, increased recently. But, although it is serious, it is manageable. Neither in terms of total homelessness accepted nor in terms of lettings to the homeless as a percentage of all lettings does Leicester stand out as a particularly difficult city. Indeed, the proportion of homeless people in temporary accommodation has been exceptionally low until very recently. It is not true to say that the Government have failed to help Leicester with its homeless. The city's housing investment programme allocation of £18·3 million was the highest per capita in the east midlands. On the national scale, although the city is only 23rd in terms of population and 27th in terms of need, Leicester's estimated spend for the current year is the 14th highest of those of all the largest housing authorities. In 1989–90 it was ninth highest.
We recognise the vital role of voluntary organisations in the prevention and relief of homelessness. That is why we have again more than doubled—to £4·5 million—the amounts available to those organisations in 1991–92 in grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985. Of this money, £1·6 million goes to the new national co-ordinated homelessness advice service, based on citizens' advice bureaux and involving Shelter and SHAC, to make timely and expert advice more widely available than ever before. The remainder of the money will go to a total of 78 voluntary bodies for specific projects of direct practical help to the single homeless.
Leicester night shelter, for example, received £15,102 in 1990–91 towards the cost of establishing a junior night shelter providing overnight accommodation, meals, advice, therapy and other necessary facilities for homeless people between 16 and 19 in Leicester for whom the existing shelter is not suitable. Funding in the next financial year will be in the region of £25,000 subject to agreement on satisfactory monitoring and evaluation arrangements.
Much play has been made during the debate of the housing that is alleged to have been lost through the right to buy. Of course, that housing is not actually lost at all. For the most part, it is still occupied by the Leicester people who rented it in the first place. When they die or move on, it goes either to their children or to other Leicester people who, in earlier years, would probably have been on the waiting list for rented housing.
The money that is received from the sale of housing is similarly not lost. The Government are ensuring that that money is, as far as possible, used to meet the most urgent need in terms of new capital expenditure on housing, and, by requiring local authorities to repay debt, they are helping to reduce the burden on local authorities. At all events, despite the right-to-buy sales that have taken place, the falls in re-lets have not been as dramatic as some people believe. Between 1984 and 1990 the number of council houses re-let in Leicester has remained stable. It was almost 2,000 last year. With the additional housing association units coming on stream during that period, re-lets for social housing for rent may even have slightly increased.
Leicester city council has had large sums of capital finance to dispense over the past few years. It has had full freedom of choice on how that finance should be allocated. In 1989–90 the council spent more than £48 million. If even £5 million of that had been put into grant aid for housing association building to rent, up to 130 new dwellings could have been provided. Furthermore, the council is owed £4 million in rent arrears—10 per cent. of its total rent roll. That is by far the highest percentage in the whole of the east midlands. It is 21st in the national league. If £4 million could be retrieved, the funds for a further 100 houses might be released. It is most unfair that some of those who are decently housed should deprive the homeless by not paying their rent.
Management of the council stock could also be improved. Void rates have been persistently high over the years. In April last year, the latest year for which figures are available, 2·78 per cent. of its total housing stock was unoccupied. That is almost 3,000 properties—a fact that has been conveniently overlooked in the debate. If that figure could be cut merely to the regional average voids figure, which is just under 2 per cent. of stock, it would make available more than 250 properties—enough to accommodate all the homeless to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. If Leicester could manage its stock as well as the average management performance in the east midlands, many more people could be housed.
In its 1990 housing investment programme return, Leicester failed to estimate how many private sector dwellings were vacant. I expect that the figure must be around 4,000. Any council that was clear-headed about making the best use of available resources and was really determined to meet the needs of its homeless people would by now have been in touch with every owner. It would be encouraging all of them to make use of the new market rent regime that the Government have introduced and make accommodation, either furnished or unfurnished, available for the homeless.
With the consent of the Secretary of State, grants can be paid to private landlords under sections 24 and 25 of the Local Government Act 1988. Those grants take the form of revenue or capital assistance. Where necessary, the council can consent to top up housing benefit payments with grants under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1988 to ensure that owners are fairly recognised. A determined effort could produce hundreds of additional rented properties from that source.
The housing association movement has done a wonderful job in Leicester. Over the past three years it has added 744 dwellings to the stock of houses to let there. In 1990–91, 237 houses were added. Had it wished, Leicester city council could have considered ways of drawing private funding into the rehabilitation of its own rented stock by transferring some of it to the housing association movement. It could thereby have released funds for new build.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that housing associations are not handling the demand from homeless people in almost any way and that, of a total accepted statutory homeless of 8,718, the total housed by local authorities in the area was 5,833, and the total housed by housing associations was only 96—that is, 1 per cent.? Those figures come from the east midlands housing corporation for 1989–90.

Mr. Yeo: The figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted are somewhat historic by now, and the housing associations are placing increasing emphasis on housing homeless people. The associations' total programme is building up substantially as the Government are roughly doubling the allocation to the housing association movement through the Housing Corporation—from just over £1 billion in the current year to just over £2 billion in three year's time. The housing associations will be making a rapidly growing contribution towards solving the problems of homelessness in Leicester.
Leicester city council could also consider offering capital payments to some of its existing tenants to encourage them to move into the private rented sector, making way for homeless people with, currently, no alternative but to rent. Another possibility is to make better use of the stock by paying elderly tenants to vacate family housing and move into flats.
Another aspect of overall housing management needs developing. Several authorities have set up property shops, which ensure that each person coming to the council for housing considers all the options open to him, instead of heading automatically into a council house. People are given information about the prices and types of housing available for sale. They are invited to look at shared ownership—something that they may never have considered. Housing associations provide information about their own stock and waiting lists. Most important of all for the longer term, registers of reliable private

landlords are built up, and contacts with them maintained, so that this most flexible source of accommodation can make a contribution. In that way, people who would be better suited in another form of tenure do not clog the waiting list unnecessarily, and I commend that course of action to Leicester.
I admire many aspects of Leicester's housing policy. Its renewal strategy over 15 years has done much to consolidate its older private sector stock. More recently, it has begun to work with housing associations. In addition, we worked with it through the estate action programme. But Leicester city council must cease to see itself as a universal provider. Instead, it should consider dispassionately how it can most make use of private sector property and private sector finance, thus adding to the sum of housing to rent. I hope that it will improve those management aspects which have left it with runaway arrears and unnecessary voids. As the economy expands and as Leicester city council comes out of the 1920s, I can foresee much brighter housing prospects for its citizens.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to invite me to visit Leicester and to see some of the factors for myself. I am glad to be able to tell him that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will pay a visit to Leicester later this year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.